Half-a-million Pula child maintenance debt could jail Molatlhegi
Spira Tlhankane | Monday September 28, 2026 10:13
After last year’s CoA ruling Molatlhegi was supposed to pay P340 500 but he failed to do so, compelling his ex-wife Ontlametse Chabata Molatlhegi (respondent) to confront him with contempt proceedings that resulted in, amongst other things, a committal order against him. A warrant of civil imprisonment was then issued against Molatlhegi and it stated that the latter was to now pay the sum of 527, 759.00 and 10% interest per annum plus costs of the judgement. After a brief jail time Molatlhegi sought an urgent application for stay of execution.
Molatlhegi wants the High Court to make an order that the execution of the warrant of arrest for civil imprisonment dated September 17, 2025 be stayed pending final determination of the applicant’s application for rescission which is filed simultaneously with this application. He also wanted deputy sheriff, Lotty Mayepedza or any other sheriff seized with warrant of civil imprisonment dated September 17, 2025 be and hereby ordered to stay the execution pending the final determination of the matter. In the years that he defaulted, Molatlhegi was supposed to pay P3500 per month as maintenance for his two minor children when his divorce with ex-wife Ontlametse Chabata Molatlhegi (respondent) was finalised in 2018.
In his application for stay of execution Molatlhegi said he is surprised therefore that his ex wife and mother of his two children went ahead and obtained a warrant of civil imprisonment against him for an amount of P527.750.00. “There is no explanation how that figure was reached since the arrears were suspended for a year from 16th April 2024 to 16 April 2025 meaning no interest was accumulating on the areas. Secondly I have never been served with any summons for civil imprisonment after 1 did my term of 90 days from the first incarceration,” he said.
Now in the application before Justice Chris Gabanagae, Molatlhegi says he was ordered to pay maintenance to his minor children in the amount of P3500 per month and claims that he later lost his job and ended up doing consultancy work. “As a result of the nature of consultancy work, financial benefits only become available upon work done. Sometime one can spend six months without being engaged in work making it difficult to have a steady stream of income hence the default that resulted in arrears. As of the order of court dated the 16 April 2024, where I had applied for variation of the maintenance allowance the arrears at that time were P294 000.00,”he further stated.
“It is prejudicial to the applicant to have a warrant executed for civil imprisonment on him without affording the applicant opportunity to state his side of the story on account of not only the payment made but also without serving him with court due process. It follows that the harm which the applicant apprehends will be suffered as a result of the effect of the judgment is within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, which I respectfully submit has jurisdiction to determine this application,” Molatlhegi’s lawyers state in his application. Molatlhegi added that in determining what is just and equitable for the purpose of granting or refusing a stay of execution, the court should have regard to the potentiality of irreparable harm or prejudice sustained by himself if leave o execute were to be refused.
“It goes without saying, that if the present order for stay is not granted, and the respondent proceeds with execution in line with the warrant of civil imprisonment which has not captured the amount paid, the proper calculations of the capital amount or amount owed, and the fact that no service of court process was effected on the applicant, the applicant will suffer irreparable harm in that it will be in perpetual debt with no proper or liquid amount ascertainable that he can put to plan a solid plan to get himself out of the debt in question,” Molatlhegi further said.
Molatlhegi pointed out that judgment against him was erroneously sought and granted without notice to him therefore on that ground alone, he says he has high prospects of success on the rescission application on the facts set out in its founding affidavit to the rescission application.
In the matter of urgency he says he has been called, by deputy sheriff Manyepedza that he want to meet and execute a warrant of arrest for his civil imprisonment, a matter that he says he has already served for 90 days. “The call for execution of a warrant came as a shock since there was nothing served on me so that I prepare in advance my defence. I have always maintained that the capital alluded in the warrant was not the correct amount and that factor alone has made it impossible for me to seek finances to clear the debt,” he noted. Molatlhegi claims that he has made attempts to secure funding from relatives and the only thing making life difficult is the amount claimed should that factor be considered and reconciled properly the prospects of settling the matter remains high.
He said should the court allow the sheriff to execute the warrant of arrest as it is and that the amount claimed is twice what is being owed, he will have no recourse or remedy available to him once locked inside the prison cell. “The efforts I have made to secure finances despite the fact that I have no permanent job will be futile. My liberty is at stake occasioned by a warrant that was not properly obtained, there being no service of summons on my part or the notice of set down for the hearing of the application for civil imprisonment. The balance of convenience favour that the warrant for civil imprisonment granted in error and without notice be stayed as a matter of urgency,” he further emphasised.
Molatlhegi said his ex-wife will not be prejudiced as they are the ones who orchestrated the impropriety of their proceedings which are currently the subject matter of the rescission application. He submitted that the applicant has bona fide grounds for stay of execution which will not prejudice the respondent as they will get redress in due course. “The prejudice the applicant will suffer is much greater if the execution is not stayed compared to any prejudice the respondent may suffer if a stay is granted,” he said.
Molatlhegi has lost every case since the High Court matter, and last year in the grounds of appeal, he asked that the 2018 order be varied and replaced with an order substituting the maintenance amount of P3500 with P500. The High Court in 2018 found Molatlheg to be dishonest as he had not mentioned that he was employed by the Academy Hospital, but boldly submitted that he had no means to support himself. Observing that Molatlhegi cared less about the interests of the children, the court found that the latter would not have applied to vary the 2018 order had he not been held in contempt and committed to prison, and that he abused the court process.
But CoA’s Justice Baaitse Nkabinde later dismissed his appeal, citing that Molatlhegi’s conduct is unacceptable and cannot be countenanced. “The respondent has solely taken care of the children over the years. According to the appellant, she should be imprisoned for 90 days. This does not only demonstrate unreasonableness on his part but also coldness and total disregard for the best interest of the minor children,” Nkabinde said when she delivered the ruling.