Court blocks GEPF from paying out man’s pension benefits pending child maintenance case

The Bloemfontein High Court has interdicted the Government Employees’ Pension Fund (GEPF) from paying out a father’s pension benefits pending maintenance court proceedings.

In January 2020, the mother instituted divorce proceedings against the father and also brought an application for maintenance.

In June 2020, the court ordered the father to pay child maintenance of R1500 per month per child for their two children. The court also ordered the father to buy clothing for the children twice a year for R1 000 per child. He was ordered to pay school fees, extramural activity costs, and medical, hospital, dental and pharmaceutical expenses. The court also ordered him to pay maintenance to the mother and contribute towards her legal costs.

At the time, the father was permanently employed by the National Prosecuting Authority as a prosecutor. According to court documents, the father did not comply with the order.

His employment contract was terminated at the end of 2022. In January 2024, the mother lodged another maintenance application. In February 2024, the claim for arrear maintenance was settled for R160 000. The GEPF was ordered to pay the R160 000 into the mother’s account for arrears maintenance.

At that time, the maintenance court did not address the children’s future maintenance. The R160 000 was never paid.

Maintenance court order

In May 2025, the maintenance court made another order against the GEPF for future maintenance, ordering payment of R66 000 to the mother. This payment was never made. In the same order, the court ordered the father to pay a monthly maintenance of R2 500 per child, with the first payment due on 30 June 2026. The court also ordered the father to buy clothing for both children twice a year for R3 000 and to pay both children’s school fees.

The mother placed uncontested evidence before the court that the father had failed to pay maintenance to the children throughout.

“It is common cause between the parties that the Fund did not make any payments at all as envisaged in the maintenance court’s orders. Consequently, monies that were to be paid over for the benefit of the minor children remain as a benefit of the respondent in the Fund. This should be rectified as soon as possible,” commented Judge Johannes Daffue.

In his defence, the father argued that he could not pay maintenance and school fees because the GEPF refused to pay out his pension fund benefits amid the court applications.

“The respondent failed to set out his financial position, including his income and expenditure, and why he could not make the payments without relying on a pay-out from the GEPF. He is, no doubt, a recalcitrant father who has for many years neglected his children by refusing to pay towards their maintenance.

“The Maintenance and Pension Funds Acts are now working together in tandem to provide relief against recalcitrant people like the respondent. The history of the case has shown that the respondent is averse to paying maintenance,” commented the judge.

‘She can’t claim more’

The father further argued that the mother had no right to claim anything further as the court had already awarded her half his pension fund during the divorce.

“Although the applicant received 50% of the respondent’s pension fund benefit in terms of the High Court order, there is no doubt, and it has been accepted by the respondent’s counsel, that the two further amounts of R160 000 and R66 000, ordered by the maintenance court to be paid over by the Fund to the applicant, have never been paid,” commented the judge.

“I trust that the maintenance court will expedite its processes to ensure payment is obtained from the Fund in terms of its own orders. There is no reason why the Fund shall not forthwith pay to the applicant the amounts of R160 000 and R66 000.”

The GEPF was interdicted from paying R426 000 from the pension fund benefits to the father pending finalisation of the maintenance case.