PAUL NKHOI VERSUS MADINA MAJUNA JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DODOMA SUB REGISTRY AT DODOMA DC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8336 OF 2024 Originating from the Juvenile Civil Application No. 63 of 2023 at the Juvenile Court of Dodoma at Dodoma) BETWEEN PAUL MKHOI ………………………………………APPELLANT VERSUS MADINA MAJUNA……………………..………….RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Date of the last order: 30/07/2024 Date of the Judgment: 06/08/2024 LONGOPA, J.: The appellant and respondent were petitioner and respondent before the Juvenile Court for Dodoma. It was averred in the petition that the appellant and respondent herein were in a relationship for approximately one year and they were blessed with one issue named MICHELLE PAUL NKHOI (2 years old) born at Makole Hospital in Dodoma. The appellant has been contributing to the maintenance of the child since pregnancy. The 1|Page instant appellant made an application under Rule 56(1) of the Law of the Child (Juvenile Court Procedure) Rules, 2016 for the following orders, namely: First, declaration of parentage of MICHELLE PAUL NKHOI. Second, any other orders that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant. The Juvenile Court of Dodoma found the application meritoriously and declared the child to belong to appellant as all the available evidence pointed out that appellant is father of the child in question. It is that ruling and drawn order dated 19th February 2024, which declared that appellant to be the biological parent of MICHELLE PAUL NKHOI that aggrieved the appellant thus preferring this appeal on the following grounds, namely: 1. That, the trial court erred in law and fact in concluding that the Appellant is the father of baby MICHELE PAUL MKHOI basing on a purported DNA report received by the court from the welfare officer without first establishing who were the custodian of the said report. 2. That, the trial court erred in law and fact in concluding that the Appellant was the father of baby MICHELE PAUL MKHOI basing on the purported DNA report 2|Page which was tendered contrary to the rules of procedure as the person who tendered it was not the maker of the report, is not a medical/DNA expert and as such she/he had no capacity to tender the same. 3. That, the trial court erred in law by not affording the appellant a fair hearing as the same was not afforded an opportunity to cross examine the person who brought the purported DNA report and tendered it and as such making an inference that the said report was final and conclusive regardless of whatever shortcomings it has. 4. That, the trial court erred in law and fact by receiving and acting on a mere letter and not DNA report as a basis for its decision and hence entirely relying on an invalid document in reaching to its decision/ruling. 5. That, the trial court erred in law and fact by disregarding the Appellant's testimony and evidence in reference to the difference of blood group of baby MICHELE PAUL MKHOI which is group A from that of the Appellant which is group B and that of the Respondent which is group O which is a conclusive proof that the Appellant is not the father of the child. 3|Page The respondent vehemently disputed all the grounds of appeal and called upon this court to call the appellant to strict proof of the allegation. On 30th July 2024, the parties appeared before me in person fending for themselves for viva voce hearing. Mr. Paul Nkhoi, the appellant was the first one to address the court. He adopted all grounds of appeal. It was the appellant’s submission on the ground related to the blood group which appears as the last ground in the Memorandum of Appeal. He argued that the scientific investigation and data have shown that it is the parents who influence the blood group of the child as the blood group of the child comes from the parents thus a child cannot have a blood group that is not related to the parents of that child. He reiterated that when the blood groups of the parents are considered, the blood group O is always dominated by other blood groups A and B in the sense that if parents have blood groups A and O, then the likelihood is that a child will always be blood group A while parents of blood groups B and O will have a child of group B. The appellant stated that if this child would be blood group B then appellant would not have lamented as her mother is blood group O which 4|Page is always dominated by other blood group of A and B. Appellant stated that at the trial Court he did not present any documentary evidence to substantiate the question of blood groups of the parents and the child except that in his evidence he stated that his blood group is different from that of the child and that child's mother is having a non-dominant blood group O thus the child could have carried my blood group. On the fourth ground, it was submitted that the DNA report was brought to the Court in form of a Letter. It was appellant’s expectation the same to be in Print out of the laboratory examination report that would reveal details on the parents’ blood groups and other necessary details. Also, it was expected that the DNA report would be tendered by medical/ DNA expert so that parties could ably question/cross examine that person regarding the differences in blood groups of the parents and the child in question. With regard to the 3rd ground of appeal, it was submitted that after the DNA report was brought to Court the Social Welfare Officer is the person who read contents of the same. It was appellant’s concern that 5|Page there was a no medical /DNA expert to explain on his concerns. He is complaining the fact that he was only informed that DNA Results are conclusive regarding the parentage of the child. Appellant is of the view that it is not right for the Court not affording opportunity to challenge the DNA Results as there was none to explain. On the 1st and 2nd grounds of appeal regarding the manner in which the DNA Results Report was tendered, it was submitted that it was the appellant's expectation that DNA expert/ Medical expert would tender the same before the Court for the appellant to be able to question and get clear elaborations/ clarifications regarding the dispute that existed. The appellant argued that the report was a typed letter describing what was done at the Chief Government Chemist and it is not the machine print out of the DNA Results from the laboratory analysis, thus he was afraid that the person could have been interferences from the other party to the case. It was the appellant’s prayer that the DNA tests be repeated afresh whereas there should be print out of the Laboratory examination results attached to the transmittal letter. Thus, he prayed that this appeal be allowed on those grounds. 6|Page On the other hand, the respondent submitted from the outset that the case was fairly determined by the Juvenile Court for Dodoma Region. The trial Magistrate decided the case as per the appellant's request and prayer that the DNA test should conducted allegedly on ground that he thinks the child was not his child. According to the appellant, it was the appellant's request before the trial court to order DNA test that would determine through scientifically manner who is the father of the child in question. Further, it was submission of the respondent that appellant never informed her about the information the appellant had received from another person that the appellant's fatherhood to the child in question was doubtful. It was during the hearing of the case that the appellant requested that child maintenance should be suspended pending the hearing of the case until the examination and DNA Results are out to confirm parentage. According to the respondent, the trial court allowed stoppage of the maintenance of the child by the appellant which is violative of human rights especially on the rights of the child that insists that a parent must continue 7|Page to take care of the child in question in terms of providing maintenance costs of the child until it is proved to the contrary scientifically and that there is a Court order that the appellant/applicant is not the biological father of the child. It is at that stage that maintenance may be stopped. It was the respondent’s version of story that the appellant and respondent at all material time while trial at the Juvenile Court was ongoing both parties continued to be close and enjoyed sexual intercourse. It was reiterated that throughout the period the case was pending determination before the Juvenile Court. The respondent was of the view that appellant is using the Court to delay performance of his obligations being a biological father of the child thus he should have taken up his obligations to provide maintenance at 100% after the determination of the case by the trial Court and declaration of the parentage was made. It was further argued that on the date of the decision, the trial court magistrate orally ordered that the appellant should provide the maintenance of the child as the DNA Results revealed that he was the biological father of the child. The appellant as a father of the child was 8|Page supposed to cater for the maintenance costs of the child but he is not doing so currently. Accordingly, respondent stated that the trial magistrate determined the case considering all the circumstances that the parents continued to be in good and cordial relationship. It was the respondent's expectation that trial court's magistrate would have stated explicitly the requirement of maintenance of the child be provided for by the father of the child. The respondent narrated that the DNA test samples were taken in a proper manner as it was conducted jointly by the Chief Government Chemist where both the appellant, respondent and the child were escorted from the court by a police officer to the place where DNA test samples were taken from the parties involved. The police officer was present all along when the samples were taken at the place that the Court directed and that parties were informed that DNA Results would be presented to the Court which would inform the parties thereto. It was further submitted that parties had to waiting for the court's notification of the DNA Results until when the same arrived and the parties were summoned to appear. 9|Page According to the respondent, the DNA Results were brought in a sealed envelope and parties were involved in verifying that the envelope containing the DNA Results was sealed. It is upon the parties to the case confirmation that the envelope was sealed properly without anything indicating the same to have been opened, then the trial court did open it in presence of the parties to the case and the social welfare officer. The respondent states further that she was not afraid that there could be tempering as the whole process was transparent and participatory in nature thus it was done in accordance with the law. It was argued that DNA testing was participatory, transparent and professionally done and on arrival of DNA results both parties were fully involved by and both parties to the case did witness the envelope being opened before all in the court room and the contents therein being read. It was respondent’s view that the DNA results from the Chief Government Chemist who is the final authority in this country with regard to issues pertaining to DNA, she opposes to a second DNA within the country. In case the appellant is willing to cater for travel and living expenses for all three persons – appellant, respondent and child, such DNA test can be 10 | P a g e undertaken in any other country of choice outside Tanzania. The respondent reiterated that the Chief Government Chemist is the final authority for all issues of DNA in Tanzania, there is nothing to doubt on the DNA results. The respondent also emphasized that she is certainly sure that the child belongs to the appellant, then the appellant must be responsible for costs of maintenance of the child. He should stop deviating from performing his responsibilities. In addition, respondent argued that she would have really preferred that the appellant allow her to send the child to his parents especially the appellant's mother so that they can have a say about the child in question as the parents are likely to determine if the child belong to their son or otherwise. They have traditional means of identifying the parentage of the child. The appellant has not done so to allow the respondent and her child to go to the appellant’s homeland for that purpose. It was the respondent’s prayer that this Court be pleased to state in writing to determine that the appellant should be accountable and responsible to cater for costs of maintenance of the child. The appellant is 11 | P a g e not taking care of the child since August/September 2023. He should be ordered to do so because the child needs to be taken care of in terms of costs of maintenance of the child. The respondent reiterated that as DNA results confirmed and revealed that the appellant is the biological father of the child, it is just thing to do for this court to compel the appellant to take care of the child including the following: (a) food; (b) clothing; (c) Other necessities like soaps, oil etc. (d) the costs for maid/nanny to take care of the child. The maintenance costs of the child should be given every month as the appellant is financially capable of taking care of the child. The appellant rejoined that the DNA test should be repeated so that appellant is satisfied that he is really a biological father of the child as such second test for DNA is necessary considering that there are differences in blood groups between the parents and the child. It was further restatement by the appellant that he has all the right to challenge the DNA results as it might have been resulted from a mistake on party of the persons engaged in the whole process of DNA testing chain. 12 | P a g e Having heard the rival arguments by the parties, I have dispassionately considered the grounds of appeal, proceedings and judgment of the Juvenile Court of Dodoma to determine the validity of appeal. All the grounds challenge the DNA results except a single ground on disregarding the evidence of the appellant on differences in blood groups between the appellant, respondent and the child. I shall commence to address the ground of appeal relating to disregarding the evidence of the appellant on different blood groups. It is on record that appellant claimed that he has blood group B while the child is blood group A and her mother is blood group O. This testimony was made at the rejoinder of the petition. According to appellant, he took the child in question to the hospital where blood groups of his own and the child was tested without child mother knowledge. It should be noted that this was oral evidence during rejoinder as during the submission in chief concentration was on prayer of DNA testing. My perusal of the petition and the evidence indicates that there are two important aspects on this aspect. First, the pleadings do not contain any clause or sentence on difference in blood groups between the parties 13 | P a g e to the petition nor that of the child. Second, there was no any documentary evidence to corroborate the evidence that parents and child have different blood group. In the circumstances, absence of a single clause on the petition regarding the question of disparities of blood groups on parents with the child makes the lament lack legs to stand on. In Paulina Samson Ndawavya vs Theresia Thomasi Madaha (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2017) [2019] TZCA 453 (11 December 2019) (TANZLII), at page 13, the Court of Appeal reiterated the role of pleadings in the following words: The other remark which we find ourselves compelled to make relates to pleadings. In doing so we cannot do better than reiterate what we said in James Funke Gwagilo vs. Attorney General [2004] TLR 161 whereby we underscored the function of pleadings being to put notice of the case which the opponent has to make lest he is taken by surprise. From that same decision we reiterated another equally important principle of law that parties are bound by their own pleadings and that no party should be allowed to depart from his pleadings thereby changing his case from which he had originally pleaded. 14 | P a g e As the question of the disparities in blood groups between the appellant, respondent and the child whose paternity was challenged, it was a very serious aspect that needed to be brought to the fore. However, the appellant did not include it in the pleadings in the first place. There was nothing to prove the assertion that actually the appellant once went for blood test of his blood group, or respondent or child’s blood group. The evidence on record do not support existence of any material evidence on blood group. The appellant therefore is bound by his own pleadings. Consequently, even if the same was included in the pleadings yet it was the appellant’s duty to prove that blood groups of the persons are different by bringing to court evidence to substantiate. This is in accordance with the provisions of section 110 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2019, which provides that: 110.-(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. 15 | P a g e I have thoroughly perused the proceedings and judgment of the trial Juvenile Court but found no iota of evidence to establish existence of different blood groups. In the case of Jamal A. Tamim vs Felix Francis Mkosamali & Another (Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2012) [2013] TZCA 342 (3 May 2013) (TANZLII), at page 11, the Court of Appeal reiterated on the role of the first appellate court in re-evaluation of evidence. It stated that: Undoubtedly, this is a first appeal. It is trite law that it is in the form of a re-hearing. The appellant is entitled in law, to have our own consideration and views of the entire evidence and our own decision thereon: see, D.R. PANDYA v. R. [1957] E.A 336. It is settled view of this Court that the trial Juvenile Court acted correctly to disregard the appellant’s assertion on blood groups. There was nothing material place at the disposal of the trial court to determine in favour of the allegation of blood group allegedly being different. Having analysed the evidence on record, it is my opinion that there was nothing to warrant the trial Juvenile Court to concur with appellant’s version of story on disparities of blood groups. Thus, 5th ground of appeal collapses naturally for being devoid of merits. 16 | P a g e The rest of the four grounds of appeal, shall be jointly disposed of in their togetherness. The appellant complained that: First, the chain of custody of the report. Second, tendering of the DNA result was done unprocedural as it was not tendered by the maker. Third, the appellant was not availed opportunity to cross-examine the maker. Fourth, the DNA result was in form of a letter thus a mere document. All these aspects were objected by the respondent on account that DNA result resulted from a transparent and professional process by the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority. To address all these aspects on DNA Results, it is pertinent to analyse the law and practice governing the process. The analysis may shed light on whether or not the complaints by the appellant hold water or otherwise. The most important pieces of legislation in addressing the question at hand are the Human DNA Regulation Act, No 8 of 2009 (Cap 73 R.E. 2019), the Law of the Child Act, Cap 13 R.E. 2019 and the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority Act, No. 8 of 2016. 17 | P a g e It is settled law in Tanzania that parentage is established by different ways. These are provided for in the Section 35 of the Law of the Child Act, Cap 13 R.E. 2019. It provides that: 35. The following shall be considered by a court as evidence of parentage:- (a) any marriage performed in accordance with the Law of Marriage Act; (b) the name of the parent entered in the Register of Births kept by the Registrar-General; (c) performance of customary ceremony by the father of the child; (d) public acknowledgment of parentage; or (e) DNA results. It is lucid that birth certificates and DNA results are among the evidence of parentage of the child. In case there exists, a birth certificate indicating a particular person as parent of the child or DNA result to the effect such documentation is necessary to establish parentage of that child. Of all the five evidence list by the law to prove parentage, it is only the DNA result that is an outcome of scientific analysis that can be used to establish the paternity with certainty and clarity. 18 | P a g e The DNA testing in particular for human DNA is regulated by the law. As a result, the Human DNA Regulation Act is illustrative on initiation of the process. It provides that: 25.-( 1) The analysis of sample for Human DNA shall be initiated by a written application by the requesting authority to the Human DNA Laboratory of the Government Chemist Laboratory Agency or designated laboratories for Human DNA. (2) For the purpose of this Act the requesting authority shall be:- (a) the court where the subject matter is in dispute between the parties; (b) advocates of the court of law, Social Welfare Officers and community development officers for law matters which are not in dispute; (c) a Police Officer of or above the rank of inspector; (d) research institutions that are mandated to conduct research in Human DNA; (e) a District Commissioner in the case of a mass disaster; or (f) medical practitioner for medical cases. 19 | P a g e By virtue of section 25(1) and (2) of the Human DNA Regulation Act, there must be analysis of samples for DNA and the Court of law is empowered to order DNA test to be conducted where a subject matter is in dispute between the parties. That being the case, the Law of the Child Act which is the governing law in dealing on DNA resulting for parentage purposes. Section 36 (1), (2) and (3) of the Law of Child reiterate on the court’s mandate to issue an order for DNA test. It allows the court to order medical tests through DNA test to corroborate the evidence on the paternity of the child. It is on record that there was a dispute between the appellant and respondent on parentage of the child, one Michelle Paul Nkhoi which allegedly arose from the undisclosed visit of an elderly person to appellant informing him that the child in question was not his. In the instant appeal there exists a DNA result on parentage that arose out of the Court order. During trial of the petition the appellant prayed for the DNA test to be conducted to the parents and child to establish parentage of the child in question. Thus, the criteria for 20 | P a g e subjecting the matter to DNA testing was well within prescribed ambits of the law. On importance of adhering to the procedures for conducting DNA, it is settled law that for civil matters consent of the parties is vital. The parties must be ready to subject themselves to the DNA test. For instance, in the case of Muhibu Sefu Mohamed vs Hawa Hemed Malivata (PC. Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 15291 (19 December 2022) (TANZLII), at page 13, the High Court of Tanzania (Hon. Laltaika, J.:) stated illustratively that: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) results, from a legal point of view are a form of forensic evidence aimed at proving the identity of an individual. It is worth emphasizing that DNA testing fall under the larger box of evidence for identification. Any person may be identified by either his or her phenotypic or genotypic aspects. Phenotypic are the physical aspects such as height, skin color, physic etc. while genotypic aspects are unique modes of identification based on hereditary traits in genes. In law, DNA tests serve two main purposes: administration of criminal justice and proof of parentage especially paternity. This distinction is very important not only from a 21 | P a g e legal but also a bioethics standpoint. It raises a very important concept that underlies use of Human genetic data namely Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and, sometimes, even property rights to one's genetic information. Whereas in criminal justice the state is usually empowered to collect DNA samples from suspects to prove the link between a given suspect and a crime committed, in civil cases consent of the donor of samples for DNA testing is very important. In this appeal, it is clear that the appellant and the respondent willingly subjected themselves to the DNA testing to establish the parentage of the child i.e. paternity. An order of the Juvenile Court dated 10th October 2023 is illustrative on the matter. The DNA results are useful both in civil cases to establish paternity/ parentage as well as in criminal case to establish participation in crime commission. In the case of Omary Rashid @ Milanzi vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 298 of 2021) [2023] TZCA 167 (31 March 2023), at page 16, the Court of Appeal reiterated the role of DNA in that: In our considered view, although the DNA Report might have been intended to prove the parenthood of the born child, on the other hand, it proved that the 22 | P a g e appellant was responsible for the offence of rape committed to the victim. In the case of Faima Yazid and Another vs Yazid Kibombo (Civil Appeal 30 of 2020) [2021] TZHC 5420 (16 July 2021) (TANZLII), at page 6 the High Court (Chuma, J.:) From the above quoted provision of the law, the term "court" for purpose of parentage is only Juvenile Court which has jurisdiction and not a district court. Part V of the Act in its heading deals with parentage, custody, access and maintenance. Under this part, section 35(e) Law of the child Act provides that DNA result is one of the evidences of parentage. It is on record that the Juvenile Court on 10th October 2023 vide a letter entitled Yah: OMBI LA KUFANYA VIPIMO VYA VINASABA VYA BINADAMU(DNA) with Reference No: JUV Application 63/2023 directed to the Office of Government Chemist Laboratory informed the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority that the Court has ordered the parties one Paul Nkhoi and Madina Majuva to be subjected to DNA tests in order to establish parentage of the child named Michelle Paul Nkhoi or otherwise. As such the DNA tests were to be conducted on all the three 23 | P a g e named persons and the DNA results be filed to Court via the Police Officer one F. 3103 Sgt Godfrey. The Government Chemist Laboratory Authority on 24th November 2023 vide a letter with Reference No. MK/F30/26/VOLVI/CZ023- 0618/01 directed to District Resident Magistrate in Charge of Dodoma District Court titled: RIPOTI YA UTATA WA UHALALI WA WAZAZI KWA MTOTO (PARENTAGE TEST REPORT-DNA PROFILING) responded to the Court’s order for DNA test on the parties. The contents of the letter concluded that in all fifteen aspects/characteristics that were tested and investigated reveal that Mr. Paul Nkhoi has the same traits with the Child Michelle Paul Nkhoi and that is the same for one Madina Majuva as well. As such, GCLA conclusively opined that chances of Mr. Paul Nkhoi to be the biological father of the child Michelle Paul Nkhoi is 99.99% It is my further observations that the report is signed by three persons: Chemist (Analysist) who did the analysis, the Manager of the Forensic Biology and DNA Laboratory Section and the Director of Forensic Science Directorate. The Report is sealed by the seal of the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority. 24 | P a g e The contents of the DNA results are illustrative on the manner in which the results were arrived at. It states that there were fifteen items that were analysed to come up to the conclusion. The scientific methodology that guided the sample analysis was described. Thus, DNA Results are within the expected prerequisites for reliance by the Court on the expert opinion. In DPP vs Shida Manyama @ Seleman Mabuba (Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2012) [2013] TZCA 168 (26 September 2013) (TANZLII), at page 32, the Court of Appeal noted that: It must always be kept in mind that an expert is not a witness of fact and as such his evidence is really of an advisory character. It is not within his province to act as a judge, assessor or jury. His real function is to put before the court all the materials, together with reasons which induced him to reach that conclusion. It is from this data, material, reasons, etc., that the court, though not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials: See, Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones, AIR 1934 All 273. 25 | P a g e The trial Juvenile Court having observed in page 5 of the Judgment that the report originates from the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority as per all the features described in the decision and the conclusion arrived at the Chief Government Chemist found that the same is proper and valid to assist the Court in determination of the matter. Indeed, presence of the DNA Results indicating that appellant is the biological parent of the child concluded the matter as parties are not disputing to have been in relationship that resulted into a child in question. From the analysis it is lucid that the DNA test was ordered by the Juvenile Court of Dodoma and the results were to be submitted/ filed to the Court. Indeed, the DNA resulted were filed to the Court. The parties concurred that it was upon the court’s receipt of the DNA result when it informed the parties to appear. The DNA results were directed to court that ordered the DNA samples testing. Both the envelope that had the report and the address of the DNA Result is addressed to the trial Court on the matter. The order for DNA testing was directed to the Chief Government Chemist and the request was that the same should be filed to the same court. Thus, the question of undisputed custody does not arise at all. 26 | P a g e Also, on cross examination on the report is an afterthought on part of the appellant. There are two reasons for such findings. First, the DNA testing was a request by the appellant personally. That is what is contained in submission in chief as per proceedings dated 10th October 2023. Second, on 8th February 2024, the appellant was ready for DNA results to be read out. There was no indication whatsoever that the appellant did request for examination of the maker of the report. Third, DNA Result report was not parties’ evidence. It is the law that examination of witnesses envisages that when a party calls a witness then the opponent is availed opportunity to cross examine. Thus, laments on failure by Court to avail the appellant opportunity to cross -examine the DNA/Medical expert is unwarranted. Moreover, the question on the form of the DNA results should not detain me. There is no law that categorically requiring the laboratory examination print out of the DNA analysis to be supplied. The law recognizes the DNA results as the one required before the court of law. Before the Juvenile Court there was a DNA results report titled Parentage Test Report -DNA Profiling was filed in court. This was adequate to meet the court’s order. It has provided thoroughly on the methodology applied 27 | P a g e to reach to conclusion. At this juncture, it is my view that 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th grounds of appeal lack merits thus they must crumble for being It is the settled opinion of this court that DNA results report was correctly applied to determine the matter before it as per parties’ wishes. There is nothing wrong that the trial court to fully accept and apply the DNA results submitted to it by the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority to determine the dispute on parentage that was pending before it. Significance of the DNA in determination of disputes on paternity and modality of challenging its contents were deliberated in the case of James Joseph Lissu vs Jenipher Mussa Kilaka (Civil Appeal 40 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 13109 (12 September 2022) (TANZLII), at page 7, the High Court (Hon. Itemba, J.) observed lucidly that: I must state that, being the scientific report, the appellant cannot challenge it by mere words. It should be noted that this CGC DNA report was issued following a court order, and it is not disputed that the samples were taken from the appellant and respondent even the names featuring on the report are of the 28 | P a g e appellant and the respondent. Therefore, it was correct for the court clerk to collect the report and bring it to the court. Article 107A (2) (e) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania requires courts in delivering decision in matters of Civil and Criminal nature to dispense justice without being tied up with technicalities which may obstruct dispensation of justice. Furthermore, section 4(2) of the Law of Child Act obliges court in delivering decision to observe the best interest of the child. Best interest of a child cannot be seen to have been considered if the court will entertain mere allegations vis-a -vis scientific reports (Emphasis added). Indeed, I am persuaded by the principle in this case that DNA Results from a competent authority namely the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority (GCLA) should not be taken lightly in favour of the mere oral allegation of the party who is unwilling unreasonably to comply with court’s orders. That should not be countenanced. It is the settled law that DNA Analysis report by the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority is final and conclusive. Section 5(1) of the Act provides for the function of GCLA among others to be the referral 29 | P a g e laboratory and its analytical results shall be final and conclusive on matters related to laboratory analysis. Further, sections 20(1) and 20(2) (b) are to the effect that there is established within the authority a laboratory responsible for matters related to forensic science and DNA Services dealing with among others, biology and Human DNA. As I had pointed out that the DNA results before the Juvenile Court indicates that they originated from the Directorate. The DNA results originated from appropriate legally established laboratory. Moreover, section 23 of the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority Act reiterates the conclusiveness and finality of the reports by GCLA. It states that: A report of analytical results, issued by the Authority on services rendered in relation to forensic science and DNA, products quality and chemical management shall be final and conclusive. The DNA results dated 24th November 2023 which prepared by the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority being the final authority in this country on all matters pertaining to DNA issues, the trial Juvenile Court was obliged to so consider as final and conclusive by taking judicial notice. 30 | P a g e The report established with finality on the parentage question of the child in question. All the grounds of appeal are destitute of merits. As such, the appeal lacks any cogent merits within it. It deserves to be dismissed for lack of merits. It is pertinent that before I pen off, I must state that under the Law of the Child Act, Cap 13 R.E. 2019 is lucid on the orders that should be stated once the parentage is established. The law states categorically that: 41. A parent in respect of whom an order of parentage has been made, shall have a duty to contribute towards the welfare and maintenance of the child to supply the necessities for survival and development of the child. Having considered the ruling dated 19th February 2024 and the submissions by the parties, it is clear that the Juvenile Court did not order for appellant’s duty to maintain the child whose paternity was declared by the court. I am of the view being guided by the Law of Child Act, Cap 13 R.E. 2019 such resultant orders need not to be over-emphasized. It is in the best interest of the child in question to get maintenance from the biological father of the child. Given the circumstances prevailing in the 31 | P a g e appeal, it is ordered that the appellant one Paul Nkhoi is duty bound to ensure that he provides maintenance to the child one Michelle Paul Nkhoi. The maintenance shall cater all basics of life including food, clothing, medical expenses in form of medical insurance, school needs and other daily expenses. This duty is upon the appellant until the child in question attains the age of eighteen (18) years old as per the requirements of the law. In the circumstances of this appeal having demonstrated that there are no merits on all the preferred grounds of appeal, it is lucid that there are no cogent reasons to interfere with such decision of the trial Court. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at Dodoma this 6th day of August 2024. E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 06/08/2024. 32 | P a g e