District Court keeps R6,000 interim child maintenance pending financial assessment

The District Court kept Daniel Mokoena’s child maintenance contribution at R6,000 a month on an interim basis, dismissing his request to reduce it to R3,500 pending financial disclosure. Presiding judge K1d ordered a full assessment of both parents’ finances and the child’s reasonable needs.

Lerato Mokoena had sought a fair ongoing contribution and, if legally available and proved, an R18,000 shortfall for February through July 2025. The judgment did not decide that past-shortfall claim.

The judge found that Daniel’s initial R6,000 contribution was temporary support during a period of financial difficulty, not a permanent maintenance arrangement for that reason alone. But the judgment said his proposed reduction could not be justified solely by personal preference and that there was insufficient evidence that R3,500 would meet the child’s reasonable needs.

A R28,000 deposit was central to the assessment of Daniel’s apparent financial position. The judgment recorded his explanation as involving a loan he was required to repay, but said the financial records did not clearly establish the nature of the transaction or formal loan terms.

The judge required Daniel to provide verifiable documentation, including lender details, a repayment agreement and proof of actual repayments. Until sufficient evidence is provided, the R28,000 will remain part of the financial information considered when assessing his ability to contribute.

Lerato said Daniel had agreed by WhatsApp to pay R6,000 each month from February through July 2025. She said he paid her R18,000 during that period and that a further R9,000 he paid directly to the school was separate from the monthly contribution.

Daniel said R6,000 was a temporary target while the couple worked out their finances, and that the school payment counted toward his contribution. He said higher vehicle costs had reduced the profitability of his delivery work and that he could currently afford R3,500 a month, with agreed school costs paid directly.

Daniel also said most of the R28,000 May deposit repaid a loan he had advanced to a relative. He told the court that records showed an earlier R24,000 transfer, but acknowledged there were no written loan terms and that he could not prove the purpose of every rand.

Lerato said the couple separated in January 2025 and their child remained primarily with her. She told the court she did not have the child’s exact age or a complete itemised account of regular needs and costs; her budget included food and child-related expenses, while rent was R10,500 a month.

She acknowledged that the full rent could not be treated solely as the child’s expense. Daniel disputed attributing the whole rent to the child, noting that Lerato’s adult sister also lived in the home and contributed to the household.

The interim amount remains subject to the fuller assessment. The judgment did not resolve whether the school payment should be credited against the claimed past shortfall.