Does the treatment of arrear maintenance claims of children under the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 constitute a violation of their constitutionally protected rights to social welfare and human dignity? An exposition

Résumé 0

The time and space for the reformation of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 has presented itself through the introduction of a constitutional order in 1996. However, the legislature has thus far proven to fail in its responsibility to align consumer insolvency legislation with the values and rights that are contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The Constitution appreciates the vulnerability of children and thus affords special protection to the rights of children, including their rights to social welfare. It further guarantees children that their best interest reign supreme in every matter concerning them. The Constitution also guarantees children the right to human dignity, which right is also a value underlying South African constitutional jurisprudence. These constitutionally guaranteed rights of children to social welfare and human dignity do not enjoy protection under South African consumer insolvency law, particularly in the treatment of arrear maintenance claims of children against the estate of an insolvent debtor. Children's maintenance arrear claims do not enjoy any preference as they are treated as concurrent claims. This also burdens them with the liability to contribute towards the costs of sequestration if they have successfully proven claims and where there are insufficient funds in the free residue account. Children's maintenance arrear debts are not exempt from the discharge of pre-sequestration debt under South African consumer insolvency jurisprudence. The overall approach to the treatment of children's arrear maintenance claims compromises the rights of children to social welfare and human dignity as guaranteed in the Constitution.