A divorcing husband has to pay towards his four children's tertiary education as his obligation does not end at them leaving school, the court rules.
Image: Freepik
A recent court ruling has clarified a father's obligations regarding his children's tertiary education funding amidst a divorce, reinforcing that educational costs extend beyond primary and secondary schooling.
The Western Cape High Court said the father could not hide from his responsibilities of paying for his four children’s tertiary education simply because he agreed to foot the bill for their education, but now claimed his responsibilities ended once they left school.
The husband always paid the university fees of his daughter, who was in the second year of her studies. But after he entered into a preliminary maintenance agreement with the mother, pending their divorce, he stopped payments.
The man claimed he understood the agreement, made an order of court, to state that while at school, he was liable to foot the schooling bills of his children and that he is now off the hook.
The mother subsequently turned to the Western Cape High Court to force him to pay his daughter’s university fees. According to her, his undertaking to pay for his children’s education included their tertiary studies.
She pointed out that at the time of the maintenance order, their one daughter was already at university, thus his “school only” argument does not make sense.
The court agreed and now ruled that the maintenance order covered all educational costs, including tertiary studies.
In September last year, the husband sent a WhatsApp message to the children and to his estranged wife, stating that she was now responsible for their daughter’s university fees.H
The wife explained that after the order was granted, he refused to pay the daughter’s fees due for the remainder of 2025, resulting in an outstanding balance of over R7 000.
The University of Cape Town has a strict policy that a student with outstanding fees will not receive their academic results for the preceding year and will not be permitted to register for the following academic year.
Furthermore, an initial registration payment for the 2026 academic year was due for payment in February this year to secure the daughter’s place for the academic year. The respondent husband refused to make these payments, leaving the daughter in limbo.
The wife turned to the regional court in February, which originally made the maintenance order. That court found it did not have the jurisdiction to further deal with the matter, which caused the mother to now turn to the high court.
Acting Judge M Mayosi said the maintenance order refers to “all the children’s educational costs” and lists, by way of examples, additional tuition fees, hostel fees, the costs of extramural and sporting activities, and the costs of exchange programmes including travel and accommodation.
None of those items, in their ordinary meaning, are confined to school-level education. They apply equally to school and to tertiary level education, the judge said.
The judge said the husband’s distinction between “school” and “tertiary” education is unsupported by the wording of the order. The phrase “educational costs” is not qualified and should be understood in its ordinary sense to include the education of all four children, including tertiary education.
The court also pointed out that the mother has not worked for over 20 years. Judge Mayosi said it cannot be expected from her to pay the university fees from her monthly maintenance; thus the husband will have to dig into his pocket for his daughter and the rest of his three children if they pursue a tertiary education.