Kaparo fights wife's bid for DNA test on their four children

Former National Assembly Speaker Francis ole Kaparo has accused his wife of attempting to disinherit him by demanding DNA tests on their four children.

Kaparo is embroiled in a bitter divorce with Mary Mpereina, his wife of 40 years. Mary's case seeking divorce revolves around claims of adultery, having accused Kaparo of cohabiting with another woman in Kiambu.

In his response to Mary's application for the paternity tests, Kaparo says: "None of the children is a minor. They are all grown-ups and responsible for themselves and cannot be forced to take a DNA test that does not seek to achieve anything in their best interest."

The children the couple is referring to are Benard Kaparo who was aged 37 years old at the time the petition was filed in 2013, Stella Kaparo (35), Saidima Kaparo (32) and Susan Kaparo (30).

He further says the paternity test as demanded by his estranged wife is likely to cause undue discord in the family.

"The truth of the allegations by the petitioner can be ascertained without the use of a DNA test which is likely to result in unintended consequences in the family," Kaparo stated in a sworn affidavit.

He claimed his estranged wife, who is a former teacher and businesswoman, is more interested in the matrimonial property than the divorce.

"The petitioner seems to be more concerned about succession than the children who she wants to drag into the matrimonial dispute," Kaparo responds.

He said attempts by family members to resolve the disputes since 1984 have been in vain. The case has been before former Kiambu Chief Magistrate Patricia Gichohi.

In her plaint, Mary cited desertion, cruelty, and adultery as grounds for divorce, saying that "I have been severely affected by the respondent's inhumane treatment, dishonesty, immoral character and eventual desertion of the matrimonial home." 

She said she tried to save their marriage until Kaparo recently moved out of the house. Mary told Kiambu Chief Magistrate Emily Ominde that one of the reasons she moved to court was to protect her rights to the vast matrimonial property they jointly acquired.

"I have never consented to the respondent marrying another woman, and would never agree to share a husband," she said, adding that their problems started in 2017.