SCA Ruling on Stepfather’s Maintenance Challenge Explained

20 March 2026

—

2–3 minutes

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has struck from the roll a challenge brought by a stepfather who contested an interim maintenance order that required him to contribute to the upkeep of his estranged wife’s children. The Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter at all.

The appellant, BE, married NT in April 2018 out of community of property subject to the accrual system. The marriage broke down in late 2023. NT then initiated divorce proceedings in the Western Cape High Court and filed an application under Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court, the mechanism through which spouses may seek interim financial relief while divorce proceedings are pending.

NT sought maintenance for herself and her two children from a previous relationship, born in 2010 and 2012. BE had never formally adopted the children. NT argued that he had acted as a de facto parent during the marriage and paid school fees, accommodation, and general living expenses to a significant extent. She referred to a message BE sent to his employees at the time of the separation in which he stated that his commitment to “our kids,” in terms of love, time, education, and experience, would not change.

BE denied any legal duty to maintain children who were not his own. He noted that both their biological father and NT herself, a practising dietician, remained financially involved in their lives. He described his past contributions as voluntary gestures during periods when NT faced temporary financial difficulty.

The Western Cape High Court rejected his arguments. It found that BE had deliberately assumed a parental role, that the children relied on his financial support, and that his sudden withdrawal amounted to a denial of a sustainable livelihood. The court ordered him to pay R40,000 per month in cash maintenance for the children, retain them on his medical aid, pay up to R35,000 per month toward NT’s rent, and contribute R1 million toward her legal costs.

BE sought to appeal and obtained leave from two judges of the SCA on petition. The court, in a unanimous judgment written by Acting Justice Govindjee, held that the grant of leave to appeal does not confer jurisdiction where the statutory framework does not allow it.

The court referred to section 16(3) of the Superior Courts Act,¹ which contains an express bar on appeals that arise from maintenance pendente lite proceedings. The provision is clear, and the court held that no interests-of-justice argument can override a deliberate legislative exclusion of this nature.

The SCA also rejected BE’s argument that the high court had developed the common law in a final and binding manner through recognition of a stepparent’s duty of support. It noted that such findings arose in an interim context and remain open to full reconsideration at trial. The court emphasised that the proper remedy lay in a Rule 43(6) application before the high court if circumstances change, rather than an appeal. The matter was struck from the roll with costs.

You can read the full BE v NT SCA judgement here.