Unraveling Justice: The Thomas v Balepile Case and South Africa’s Maintenance Law Maze. – Thomas v Balepile (61/2021; CA&R 68/23) [2024] ZANCHC 4 (26 January 2024).

In a recent and significant decision, Thomas v Balepile (61/2021; CA&R 68/23) [2024] ZANCHC 4, delivered on 26 January 2024, the High Court of South Africa, Northern Cape Division, under the discerning eye of Judge APS Nxumalo, embarked on a meticulous examination of a special review application. This case, marked by its intricacies in maintenance law and procedural nuances, offers an enlightening perspective on the judicial review process in South African family law.

In the case of Thomas v Balepile, the facts underpinning the legal proceedings were both complex and pivotal in understanding the subsequent judicial decisions. The matter originated from a default order issued by a lower court, specifically dated 21 July 2022, against the respondent, Mr. Balepile.

The crux of the case revolved around an order granted by the Maintenance Court, which was later contested as being erroneously issued. The order was made in the absence of Mr. Balepile, which raised significant procedural concerns. These concerns were primarily rooted in the principles of fair hearing and proper representation, cornerstones of the South African legal system.

Further complicating the scenario was the fact that there were no comprehensive records of the proceedings on the day the impugned order was granted. This absence of documentation led to ambiguity regarding the procedural correctness of the court’s decision. This lack of clarity was particularly concerning given the significant impact such an order has on the life and obligations of the respondent.

Additionally, it was noted that Mr. Balepile was initially present during the proceedings but was later excused. The circumstances under which he was excused, and the subsequent granting of the default order in his absence, formed a critical aspect of the case’s factual matrix.

These facts set the stage for a thorough judicial examination, highlighting the need for meticulous adherence to procedural fairness in maintenance court proceedings. The complexities of the case were further unravelled through the arguments presented by each party, which are discussed in the following sections of the blog.

In the case of Thomas v Balepile, the arguments presented by each party were integral to the court’s ultimate decision. The differing perspectives of the parties highlighted the legal and procedural complexities inherent in the case.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), representing the state, initiated the special review. The DPP’s argument centred around the assertion that the default order against Mr. Balepile was erroneously granted. The DPP emphasized the absence of Mr. Balepile during the critical phases of the court proceedings, which, in their view, constituted a significant procedural irregularity. They contended that justice was not served in the manner the order was issued, leading to their request for a judicial review.

Mr. Balepile, the respondent in the case, found himself in a challenging position, having been the subject of a default order issued in his absence. While the specifics of his argument are not detailed in the available information, it can be inferred that his position would have likely focused on the procedural irregularities of the maintenance court proceedings, particularly the lack of proper representation and the opportunity to present his case.

The Acting Chief Public Prosecutor and the Chief Magistrate presented their opinions on the matter. The Chief Magistrate suggested that Mr. Balepile should pursue the setting aside of the default order under Section 18(4) of the Maintenance Act, indicating a belief that a special review was unnecessary at that juncture. Conversely, the Acting Chief Public Prosecutor believed that the Magistrate had no “locus standi” in this matter and that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with justice.

These contrasting viewpoints highlighted the legal dilemma at the heart of this case: whether the procedural missteps in the lower court’s handling of the maintenance order warranted a special judicial review, or if the matter could be resolved through standard procedural channels under the Maintenance Act.

The Law: Interpreting the Legal Framework

The legal considerations in Thomas v Balepile were multifaceted, involving an intricate interpretation of procedural law and the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998. The court’s task was to navigate these legal waters to determine the validity of the default order and the appropriate course of action.

The Maintenance Act and Section 18(4): A central piece of legislation in this case was the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, particularly Section 18(4). This section provides a legal mechanism for individuals to apply for the variation or setting aside of a maintenance order made by default. The Act outlines specific procedural requirements, including the submission of an application within a set timeframe and the provision of notice to the other party. The court had to consider whether this standard procedure was applicable and sufficient in Mr. Balepile’s situation.

Locus Standi and Jurisdictional Concerns: The concept of ‘locus standi’, referring to the right or capacity to bring an action or appear in court, was a significant legal point. The arguments raised questions about the Magistrate’s locus standi in issuing the default order. Additionally, the court had to consider its own jurisdiction and authority in reviewing the default order, particularly whether a special review was the appropriate legal recourse.

Principles of Fair Hearing and Justice: The case also touched upon fundamental legal principles such as the right to a fair hearing and the administration of justice. The absence of Mr. Balepile during critical phases of the court proceedings raised concerns about whether these principles were upheld. The court had to assess whether the procedural irregularities in the lower court warranted the setting aside of the default order.

Precedent and Interpretation of Statutory Remedies: Relevant case law and legal precedents were also considered. This included assessing how South African courts have historically interpreted the scope of remedies provided by statutes, particularly when a new statutory duty is created. The court needed to determine whether the remedy outlined in the Maintenance Act was intended to be exclusive or cumulative, which would influence the approach to the default order.

This legal framework formed the basis for the court’s analysis and decision-making process. With these principles in mind, the court rendered its order, which is discussed in the following section.

In the culmination of its thorough review, the High Court, led by Judge APS Nxumalo, arrived at a decisive order in the case of Thomas v Balepile. This decision not only resolved the immediate matter at hand but also provided important clarifications on the application of the Maintenance Act and procedural justice in South African law.

Refusal of the Special Review Application: The court, after considering all the arguments, legal principles, and the specifics of the Maintenance Act, decided to refuse the special review application. This decision indicates the court’s stance that the circumstances of the case, although complicated by procedural irregularities, did not necessitate the intervention of a special review at this stage.

Implications and Guidance: By refusing the special review application, the court essentially directed the matter back to the framework of the Maintenance Act. This decision underscores the importance of following the established legal procedures for contesting default orders within the context of the Maintenance Act. It also reinforces the principle that the remedies provided in specific legislation, like the Maintenance Act, are often comprehensive and sufficient for addressing related legal issues.

The Court’s Emphasis on Fairness and Justice: Throughout the order, there was a clear emphasis on the principles of fairness and justice. While acknowledging the procedural missteps in the lower court, the High Court’s decision suggested a belief that these issues could be adequately addressed within the existing legal framework provided by the Maintenance Act, without the need for a special judicial review.

South African Maritime Safety Authority v McKenzie 2010 (3) SA 601 (SCA): This case was pertinent for its discussion on the interpretation of statutes, particularly when a statute creates both a right and a means for enforcing that right. It emphasized the need to ascertain whether a statutory remedy is intended to be exclusive or cumulative. In Thomas v Balepile, this principle guided the court in determining whether the remedy provided under the Maintenance Act was exclusive, impacting the decision on whether a special review was necessary.

National Industrial Council of the Leather Industry of SA v Parshotam & Sons (Pty) Ltd [1984] 3 All SA 25 (D): This case was relevant for its exploration of the general rule of construction regarding statutory obligations and remedies. It established that if a statute creates an obligation and prescribes a specific remedy, that remedy is often exclusive unless an alternative intention is expressly indicated. This principle was crucial in Thomas v Balepile for determining whether the Maintenance Act’s procedures for challenging a default order were the exclusive remedies available to Mr. Balepile.

Madrassa Anjuman Islamia v Johannesburg Municipality 1917 AD 718: This case was significant for its assertion that when a statute creates a special obligation and prescribes special remedies, no other remedy is usually available, except for ancillary remedies such as an interdict, unless the legislature has expressed a contrary intention. In Thomas v Balepile, this precedent helped in understanding the scope of remedies available to Mr. Balepile under the Maintenance Act and whether he could seek remedies outside those prescribed in the Act.


The case of Thomas v Balepile thus concluded with a pivotal decision that reaffirms the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the adequacy of statutory remedies in dealing with maintenance-related legal matters. This ruling provides valuable insight into how South African courts handle procedural irregularities and the scope of legal remedies available under the Maintenance Act.

Summarised by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.