South Africa Case Law

Z.M and Another v A.F and Others (4637/2022)

Z.M and Another v A.F and Others (4637/2022) [2025] ZAECMHC 47 (5 June 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

4637/2022

Judge

Mhambi

The court held that it has the inherent power to compel DNA testing in paternity disputes involving adults. However, the respondents' insistence on exhuming the deceased's remains for DNA testing was found to be unnecessarily drastic and contrary to public morals and policy, given that alternative methods—such as testing living relatives—are available and sufficient for determining paternity. The court rejected the points in limine regarding non-joinder, finding that neither the respondents' mother nor the Master of the High Court had a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought. Co…

Source excerpt

• Paternity Dispute
• Dna Testing
• Deceased Estate Inheritance
• Joinder
• Condonation
• Costs Award

Ramuga v Department of Health and Another (29175/20)

Ramuga v Department of Health and Another (29175/20) [2020] ZAGPPHC 402 (30 July 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29175/20

Judge

Avvakoumides

The High Court ordered exhumation and DNA testing of a buried child to determine whether the remains were the applicant’s child and to allow further investigation.

• Exhumation Order
• Dna Testing
• Missing Child Investigation
• Exhumation-order
• Dna-testing
• Missing-child-investigation

M and Another v D and Another (A5020/2016)

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

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5020/2016

Judge

Windell

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…

Source excerpt

• Paternity Dispute
• Dna Testing
• Children's Act
• Best Interests Of Child
• Locus Standi

D v M and Others (30619/2015)

D v M and Others (30619/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 288 (11 December 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

30619/2015

Judge

Canca

The High Court ordered a mother and minor child to undergo DNA testing to determine paternity, finding the executrix had standing and privacy rights must yield.

• Disputed Paternity
• Dna Testing
• Locus Standi
• Best Interests Of Child
• Hearsay Evidence
• Privacy Rights

Mugwedi v S (694/13)

Mugwedi v S (694/13) [2014] ZASCA 23 (27 March 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

694/13

Judges

Navsa, Leach, Saldulker

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside rape convictions after finding the identification evidence unreliable and the medical evidence inadmissible.

• Rape
• Identification Evidence
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Dna Testing
• Hearsay Evidence
• Criminal-law

Y D (Now M) v L B (465/09)

Y D (Now M) v L B (465/09) [2010] ZASCA 106; 2010 (6) SA 338 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 501 (SCA) (17 September 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

465/09

Judges

Harms, Lewis, Ponnan, Ebrahim, K Pillay

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that scientific tests to determine paternity should not be ordered where paternity has already been established on a balance of probabilities. In this case, the respondent did not genuinely dispute paternity and had acted consistently with the belief that he was the father. The court found that the rights to privacy and bodily integrity may be limited in the best interests of the child, but such limitation was not justified here, as there was no real dispute. The function of the court is to resolve civil disputes on a balance of probabilities, not to pursue sc…

Source excerpt

• Paternity Dispute
• Dna Testing
• Children S Act
• Balance Of Probabilities

Botha v Dreyer (now Moller) (4421/08)

Botha v Dreyer (now Moller) (4421/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 395 (19 November 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

4421/08

Judge

Murphy

The court held that it possesses both inherent and constitutional jurisdiction to order compulsory DNA testing of a minor and her mother to determine paternity, where the interests of justice and the best interests of the child so require. The Constitution and the Children's Act have shifted the legal landscape, making the child's best interests paramount and granting unmarried fathers automatic rights upon proof of paternity. The court found that, in this case, scientific determination of paternity is necessary to resolve doubts, clarify parental responsibilities, and serve the child's welfa…

Source excerpt

• Dna Testing
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Best Interests Of Child
• Bodily Integrity
• Privacy Rights