M and Another v D and Another (A5020/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 602 (24 October 2018)

M and Another v D and Another (A5020/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 602 (24 October 2018)

The court found that the first respondent failed to demonstrate genuine uncertainty regarding the paternity of the minor child. The evidence presented was speculative and insufficient to justify compelling DNA testing. The deceased, SD, had accepted the minor child as his son, registered his birth, and provided for him. The application was motivated by financial interests rather than the best interests of the child. The court held that subjecting the minor child to DNA testing was not warranted and would not serve his best interests. The appeal was upheld, and the order compelling DNA testing was set aside.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 602
Parties
Appellant: M; Appellant: M in her capacity as mother and natural guardian of Z; Respondent: D; Respondent: Setshaba Pension Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2018
Case Number
A5020/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Compelling DNA Testing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order compelling DNA testing set aside; application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Windell
Legal Topics
Paternity Dispute, Dna Testing, Children's Act, Best Interests of Child, Locus Standi
Family and Children Civil Procedure Paternity Dispute Dna Testing Children's Act Best Interests of Child Locus Standi

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Appellant

M in her capacity as mother and natural guardian of Z

Appellant

D

Respondent

Setshaba Pension Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Compelling DNA Testing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants should be compelled to undergo DNA testing to establish the paternity of the minor child.
  2. 2 Whether there is genuine uncertainty regarding the paternity of the minor child.
  3. 3 Whether ordering DNA testing is in the best interests of the minor child.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent failed to demonstrate genuine uncertainty regarding the paternity of the minor child. The evidence presented was speculative and insufficient to justify compelling DNA testing. The deceased, SD, had accepted the minor child as his son, registered his birth, and provided for him. The application was motivated by financial interests rather than the best interests of the child. The court held that subjecting the minor child to DNA testing was not warranted and would not serve his best interests. The appeal was upheld, and the order compelling DNA testing was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order compelling DNA testing set aside; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of Canca AJ is set aside.