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

Nyuba v April N.O and Others (2918/2021)

Nyuba v April N.O and Others (2918/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 144 (4 May 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2918/2021

Judge

Loubser

High Court dismissed an application to remove an executor and reverse a property transfer, finding a material dispute of fact over the child’s paternity.

• Intestate Succession
• Executor Removal
• Dispute Of Fact
• Paternity Dispute
• Executor-removal
• Motion-procedure

M.S.N v C.Z.M and Others (50880/2014)

M.S.N v C.Z.M and Others (50880/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 519 (11 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50880/2014

Judge

Tlhapi VV

The High Court dismissed an application to exhume a deceased man’s remains for paternity testing and to delay enforcement of a pension-benefit order.

• Paternity Dispute
• Exhumation For Dna
• Children S Act
• Pension Benefits
• Inheritance Rights
• Paternity-dispute

Phoka v D C and Others (1591/2020)

Phoka v D C and Others (1591/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 237 (10 December 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1591/2020

Judge

T.V Raikane

The High Court ordered a guardian to subject a minor child to paternity testing to resolve a dispute over the deceased’s child status and pension benefits.

• Paternity Dispute
• Maintenance Order
• Letter Of Authority
• Pension Fund Benefits
• Paternity-dispute
• Pension-benefits

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

R and Another v M (42335/2014)

R and Another v M (42335/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 183; [2015] 4 All SA 280 (GJ); 2016 (3) SA 417 (GJ) (13 August 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42335/2014

Judge

Kathree-Setiloane

The court held that the issues of paternity and parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the minor child, Leago, are central to the pending divorce action between the second applicant and the respondent. These issues are disputed and require a full factual enquiry, including oral evidence and investigation, to determine what is in the best interests of the child. The court found it inappropriate and impermissible to resolve these matters in separate application proceedings, as doing so would fetter the discretion of the divorce court and potentially prejudice the parties. The court…

Source excerpt

• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Paternity Dispute
• Best Interests Of Child
• Rule 43 Interim Orders
• Declaratory Relief

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