Contact
Child | Child Support | Divorce | Family | Maintenance

When do maintenance obligations prescribe?

“My ex-husband has for some time now not paid his maintenance as per the court order. Because I had a job and was earning a basic income, I just left it as I didn’t want the hassle of trying to get him to pay. Now I’ve been retrenched and have asked him to pay his outstanding maintenance, but he refuses and says his attorney told him that his obligation to pay has prescribed. Surely this can’t be right?”

To assess whether the obligation to pay maintenance or a claim for unpaid maintenance can prescribe, regard must be had to the provisions of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 (“Prescription Act”).

In the recent matter of SA v JHA and Others 2021 (1) SA 541 (WCC) this aspect was considered by the court. The ex-husband was required to pay maintenance for two minor children as well as his ex-wife in terms of their divorce settlement, which was made an order of the court. The husband defaulted on the obligation to pay and the ex-wife later caused a writ of execution to be issued in respect of the arrear maintenance. The ex-husband contended that the maintenance order was not judgement debt which prescribed after 30 years as per the Prescription Act, but was an ordinary debt which prescribes after three years in terms of the Prescription Act.

The court however held that an order of the court is the same as a judgement debt for the purposes of the Prescription Act and that the maintenance obligations incorporated in the order was subject to 30 years before prescribing. 

This confirms the position that maintenance obligations that have been made an order of the court will not prescribe after three years as other ‘ordinary’ debt may, but will only prescribe after thirty years. It would be advisable that you approach your family law specialist to assist you with ensuring that your ex-husband meets his maintenance obligations.

May 20, 2021
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , , ,

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , ,

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , ,

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest