Former MP Loses Case to Avoid DNA Test

Former MP Loses Case to Avoid DNA Test.

A former politician has lost a 10 year court battle over a paternity test. The Politician whose name is not revealed filed a case against a woman who claimed he had sired a child with her, and demanded a DNA test. He claimed the test was an invasion of his privacy but after three attempts to stop the paternity test he lost the fight.

The case was ruled in favor of the woman last week on Friday, March 18 when Justices Hannah Okwengu, Mbogholi Msagha and Imana Laibuta dismissed his appeal and ruled that a DNA will confirm whether he is the biological father of the child.

We do not see how that would prejudice him or render his intended appeal nugatory. Thus the interest and right of the child to know who the biological father is, takes precedence over the applicant’s right to privacy, ” the judges ruled.

The mother of the now minor said the child was born out of a loving relationship with the politician on August 9th 2009. The court battle started when the man was sued for child support back in 2012.

The mother narrated that the politician only supported the child in the first year with shopping worth 50,000 and 20,000 cash after every two weeks. He would sometimes send his driver or visit the baby himself. She added that he pulled out in August 2010.

After a court hearing both sides the politician was ordered to take the DNA which he strongly criticized saying the court was bias. He argued that there was no proof he was the father hence the DNA was unnecessary.

Justice Lenaona ruled that the minor had a right to know his biological parents despite the politician’s convincing case that he should not be forcibly subjected to a medical test.

For the petitioner, it would be a minor inconvenience if he attends to DNA testing once. But for a child not to know its parents and benefit from their protection and care, the damage may linger for years to come.

I choose to protect the baby as opposed to the petitioner in such circumstances,” said Justice Lenaona.

The case did not end there as the politician filed an appeal, claiming he stood to suffer “irreparable harm and may incurr great loss and injury, which could be compensated in damages if the orders were not granted.”

Justice Lenaona said the politician was using the court system “to avoid the inevitable.”

He has not succeeded in any of those courts because the view of the courts, including this one, has been in the best interests of the child.