Cape Town man challenges DNA tests despite two separate tests linking him to the child

A Western Cape man challenged findings made by the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court which found that he was the biological father of a child he was denying.

The man, who was not named to protect the identity of the child, sought relief in the Western Cape High Court where he represented himself and argued that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was the biological father.

The matter dates back from 2001 when the first paternity test concluded that the man was not the father of the child.

However, in 2016, the mother approached the maintenance court and sought maintenance from the man claiming he was the biological father.

A second paternity test was performed because the first one could not be used in court as it was not associated with the South African National Accreditation System. The test was taken in April 2017, and it concluded that he was the father of the child.

The matter was then heard by a second magistrate, and for reasons which were unclear, he ordered a third paternity test, and it was done in December 2019. When the results returned, they showed that the man was the father of the child.

Following the third results, the matter was not heard, and the magistrate was recused and a third magistrate sat on the matter. The new magistrate ordered a fourth paternity test, the reason why that directive was made was also unclear.

The man was not happy with the directive and brought an application to recuse the magistrate and to review the directive that he must submit to a fourth paternity test. The matter was then given to a fourth magistrate.

The magistrate ruled that the man did not need to submit to a fourth test and the court will continue with evidence it had. After the hearing, the magistrate ruled that the man was the father.

Aggrieved by the ruling, the man sought relief in the high court where he submitted that the paternity tests were never properly introduced into evidence and, even if they were, no weight should have been placed on them because they concern expert evidence which needed to be supported by oral testimony from an expert in order to be admissible.

He also argued that the laboratories that conducted the second and third tests were not based in the Western Cape, they considered the test results against an inappropriate population group.

He admitted that he knew the woman but denied that he was in a romantic relationship with her. He said the woman used to be a regular in her bar back in 1999, but he banned her from entering the bar after she stole a picture of her son, which she later returned.

According to the man, he never saw the woman again until he heard from his wife in September 2001 saying the woman made contact and claimed he was the father of her child, the child was four months at the time.

Meanwhile, the woman’s chronology of events was riddled with errors, however, she was adamant that she was intimate with the man at her home in early August 2000, when the child was conceived.

When making a ruling, the high court said that even if the maintenance court erred in assessing the basis on which the paternity tests were admissible and the weight to be attributed to them, it nevertheless arrived at the correct finding that the man was the father of the child.

“The second and third tests indicate a high probability that the man is the father. Although the relevant calculation has not been explained in evidence, DNA tests are relatively well-known scientific tools and have some prima facie value,” said the high court.

His appeal was dismissed.