Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Ndyabahika Vs Adyeri (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 206 (9 July 2019)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicant had not raised any substantial question of law warranting leave to appeal against the interlocutory order for DNA testing. The only scientifically reliable method to resolve the paternity dispute was to conduct a DNA test using the remains of the late Henry Ndyabahika, as alternative samples from the applicant's children would not conclusively determine the respondent's paternity. The court emphasized the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to conclusively resolve the matter in accordance with Section 33 of the Judicature Act. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The earlier position of conducting the entire process within two months is ordered.

02

Material facts

Parties

Elvaida Ndyabahika

Applicant

Adyeri Hope Florence

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contended that samples from her children would be the best for DNA testing as they contain her DNA, and challenged the decision to use the remains of the late Henry Ndyabahika for the test. She sought leave to appeal the interlocutory order, arguing that there were substantial questions of law involved.
Respondent
The respondent maintained that the only reliable method to resolve the paternity dispute was to conduct a DNA test using the remains of the late Henry Ndyabahika. She argued that resemblance and sibling DNA are insufficient and that the court's order was necessary to conclusively determine her paternity.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Sango Bay Ltd v. Dresdner (1971) E.A. 17 at page 20

    Leave to appeal from an interlocutory order in civil proceedings is granted only where prima facie there are grounds meriting serious judicial consideration.

  2. 02

    Section 33, Judicature Act, Laws of Uganda

    The High Court shall grant remedies to parties so that all matters in controversy may be completely and finally determined and multiplicity of proceedings avoided.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not raised any substantial question of law warranting leave to appeal against the interlocutory order for DNA testing. The only scientifically reliable method to resolve the paternity dispute was to conduct a DNA test using the remains of the late Henry Ndyabahika, as alternative samples from the applicant's children would not conclusively determine the respondent's paternity. The court emphasized the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to conclusively resolve the matter in accordance with Section 33 of the Judicature Act. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • Resemblance can never be a basis for determining blood relationship.
  • Paternity can be scientifically proven through DNA with the samples of the alleged father or mother.
  • The decision to do DNA test on the remains of Henry Ndyabahika is the only sure way of determining the paternity of this case and put to rest the only issue of contention.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The earlier position of conducting the entire process within two months is ordered.

Source and reliance status

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2019] UGHCCD 206

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MUKONO

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2019

(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.23 OF 2018)

(FORMERLY CIVIL SUIT NO.58 OF 2016)

ELVAIDA NDYABAHIKA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT

VERSUS

ADYERI HOPE FLORENCE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

09TH JULY 2019

BEFORE HON. LADY JUSTICE MARGARET MUTONYI, JUDGE HIGH COURT

RULING

This Ruling is in respect of an Application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision of this court.

1. I have read the submissions of both sides.

2. Leave to appeal from an order of court in civil proceedings granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of which merit serious judicial considerations. See case of Sango bay Ltd Vs. Dresdner (1971) E. A. 17 at page 20.

It is granted where the Applicant has no automatic right of Appeal.

1. In the instant case leave to appeal is against the decision of court in determining the paternity of the Respondent which is highly contested by the Applicant Elvaida Ndyabahika a step mother.

This court does not agree with the submission of Counsel for the Applicant under paragraph 1 (b) that samples of the Applicants’ children are the best samples because they contain DNA from her as well. The DNA with the alleged sibling can only be resorted to if the sample of the father cannot be got.

This is because resemblance can never be a basis for determining blood relationship.

Paternity can be scientifically proven through DNA with the samples of the alleged father or mother.

In the instant case, the Applicant and her children have denied that the Respondent Adyeri Hope Florence is a daughter to Henry Ndyabahika.

The decision to do DNA test on the remains of henry Ndyabahika is the only sure way of determining the paternity of this case and put to rest the only issue of contention. The Paternity of Adyeri Hope Florence.

The Applicant has not put forth any serious substantial questions of law warranting leave of court to appeal against the decision of helping the warring parties to establish the truth once and for all.

The question to be asked is, what if the DNA with the children of the Applicant turns out to be negative? Will the issue of paternity of Adyeri Hope Florence be resolved?

The answer is no because court is investigating the paternity of Adyeri Hope Florence and none of the five samples are from Henry Ndyabahika.

The Respondent will be at liberty to request for another DNA test using the sample of the late Henry Ndyabahika which would give 99% of the expected results. Either she will be found to be a biological child or not.

Section 33 of the Judicature Act, laws of Uganda provides that” The High Court shall in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by the constitution, grant absolutely or on such terms and conditions as it thinks just, all such remedies as any of the parties to a cause or matter is entitled to…… so that as far as possible all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicities of legal proceedings concerning any of these matters avoided.

In view of the last part of section 33 of the Judicature Act, the only way of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings in respect of the Paternity question of Adyeri Hope Florence is by carrying out the scientific test of DNA using the samples of the late Ndyabahika Henry.

In the result, this court does not find any substantial question of law to be determined on Appeal at this interlocutory level of hearing.

The Application for leave to Appeal is therefore dismissed. Since this is a family matter which should come to an end.

I so Order.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Margaret Mutonyi

RESIDENT JUDGE

And the earlier position of this court of conducting the entire process within two months is ordered.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Margaret Mutonyi

RESIDENT JUDGE

MUKONO HIGH COURT CIRCUIT

09th JULY 2019

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Sango Bay Ltd v. Dresdner (1971) E.A. 17 at page 20

Case cited

Section 33, Judicature Act, Laws of Uganda

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.