A PROMINENT Bulawayo businessman, Elphias Maphisa, who was recently sentenced to eight months imprisonment over $2 475 maintenance arrears, on Monday lost an appeal against the verdict at the High Court.
BY SILAS NKALA
Bulawayo magistrate, Gladmore Mushove convicted Maphisa, of Khumalo, for defaulting paying monthly maintenance of $225 and suspended the sentence on condition he clears the arrears.
Maphisa, a qualified accountant, who was previously employed by the South African Airways and owns an apartment in Johannesburg’s Kempton Park, filed an appeal in the High Court.
He was seeking an order to set aside the conviction and sentence on the grounds that he is an indigent and unable to comply with the maintenance order because he is unemployed, has no other source of income and has two minor children, who are on bursaries in South Africa.
Maphisa submitted that the court a quo misdirected itself in convicting and sentencing him for the crime of failure to comply with a maintenance order despite finding that he lacks means.
He said the court erred by finding that he can make an income from the rentals of rooms of his home, yet the Maintenance Act deals with only the actual income and not potential income.
The State opposed his appeal on the grounds that Maphisa was a person of means and can afford to pay the amount towards the maintenance of the children.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Justice Nicholas Mathonsi, sitting with Justice Maxwell Takuva ruled that Maphisa’s conduct was contrary to his social status.
“The court is not impressed by the assertion that a 61-year-old qualified accountant, who was previously employed by the South African Airways and owns an apartment in Johannesburg could not find employment,” ruled Mathonsi. He described Maphisa as a spoilt man, who is extremely irresponsible.
Mathonsi further said Maphisa was in the habit of siring children with different women and leaving the mothers with the sole burden of looking after the minors.
“You have actually made it a habit to sire children with six different women and then abscond from the responsibility, leaving the mothers to solely provide for the children,” Mathonsi said.
The judge then dismissed the appeal, saying it was baseless and lacked merit.
“Your conduct is despicable and surely you cannot expect to have the comfort of a luxury house in a leafy suburb, while not providing for your child. There is no merit in the appeal and the appellant clearly has means to take care of his child, and accordingly the appeal is dismissed,” he ruled.
