Court dismisses man's plea for a second DNA to confirm paternity
Nairobi
By
Kamau Muthoni
| Dec 10, 2023
A man has lost his bid to ascertain the paternity of a child born after he separated from the mother.
High Court Judge John Onyiego ruled that there was no need to do a DNA test for the second time as the first one had proved that he did not father the minor.
The Judge was of the view that another test would subject the child to unnecessary psychological trauma.
He stated that from the counterarguments, it was clear that the contested child was born two years after the couple parted ways.
"From the above and as already stated, simple arithmetic shows that the minor herein was born way after the three-month mandatory Iddah period. The subject herein was born after more than two years from the time the appellant and the second respondent separated," said Justice Onyiego.
READ MORE
Employers warn of rising costs, urge Ruto to protect jobs
British Airways parent says Mideast war to hit annual profits
Mpesa drives growth as Safaricom hits record Sh99.7b profit
Kenya to spend nearly half of budget on debt servicing
KDC roots for creative economy, innovation and youth-led enterprise growth
Kenya, World Bank deepen irrigation push to boost food security
Why Nairobi's empty office problem is shrinking
Gulf Energy at the centre of yet another 'dirty fuel' drama
Dangote eyes Kenya as hub to raise African capital for refinery, other projects
"Besides, the appellant having sought for the DNA testing, the results returned showed that indeed he was not the biological father of the minor," he noted.
In the case, the court heard the man, code-named BAY, married a woman, code-named LMI, in 1993. However, they parted ways. Both are Muslims and had seven children before the marriage hit the rocks.
The man told the court that after parting ways, LMI ought to have observed a mandatory Iddah period (three months before remarrying). However, he stated that he learned immediately after parting ways that she was pregnant.
He asked the court to force LMI to avail the minor for a DNA test to ascertain if he was the father or not. BAY asserted that the right of the child to know his biological father was at stake.
The woman asked the court to dismiss the case. She argued that after delivering the lastborn, the man suffered from impotence and had failed to meet her conjugal rights.
She claimed that BAY became violent when she tried to handle the situation. She said she did a pregnancy test after divorcing him and confirmed she was not pregnant.
BAY claimed his ex-wife got married to a second man, code-named MA, for 15 months and thereafter, she married a third one.
The court heard that the third marriage happened one year after separation from MA. She told the court that the minor belonged to the third man.
The court ordered that a first DNA be done. The test indicated that BAY was not the father.
However, he insisted that there should be a fresh test. He claimed that the laboratory staff had allegedly conspired with his ex-wife to give a negative result.
On the other hand, LMI stated that after the marriage hit the rocks, they both went before elders and BAY insisted that she must be tested for pregnancy before parting ways.
She asserted that the court should not entertain the case as the father of the minor was known.
jmuthoni@standardmedia.co.ke