Wamuzi News Ke
A Kenyan court has issued a groundbreaking and provocative verdict, which will make its presence felt in family courts and inheritance disputes all over the country, ruling that paternity DNA tests cannot be ordered willy-nilly and that legal experts fear the decision could even alter the way families fight over wealth and lineage.
The judgment was rendered during a complicated dispute where siblings demanded a scientific test to support their claims to the estate of a deceased parent—only for the court to maintain the constitutional safeguards against mandatory genetic testing.
The main question revolved around whether a DNA test could be conducted without the consent of the person involved and used to conclusively decide who gets what in countries where succession is a big issue.
In this case, the court decided that even if DNA tests can be of help to the finding of evidence, forcing a person to take the test goes against the Constitution’s fundamental rights to privacy and bodily autonomy, especially in view of the fact that there might be other forms of evidence available.
The ruling comes at a time when the courts are overwhelmed with cases pertaining to family estates, where DNA testing is often the only way to settle the matter.
The parties in the dispute had claimed that DNA testing was the only way to decide who was the rightful heir once and for all, especially in cases where the so-called children were entitled to inherit large amounts of property or assets. Nevertheless, the court’s ruling made it increasingly clear that personal rights take precedence over scientific convenience in these matters.
Legal experts in the field of succession law highlight that the decision reflects the larger issue of balancing constitutionally guaranteed individual rights against the need for truth in equitable distribution of estates.
Certain scholars in the law field opine that this verdict might lead to changes in the law that would include a clearer specification of the circumstances under which DNA evidence can be presented in court without infringing on personal rights.
Opponents of the ruling assert that it will cause family conflicts to drag on and be an inviting scenario for claiming by fraud or for claims that cannot be verified, especially in cases where no wills are left and the state intestacy rules apply.
Meanwhile, the ruling is claimed by its proponents to have saved the weak ones from the invasiveness of medical procedures and being subjected to the misuse of scientific evidence in the emotionally laced and contentious area of wills and inheritance.
The case is expected to lead to a multitude of appeals as well as possibly requiring the courts to give a more detailed account of the place of forensic evidence in inheritance law, which will leave families, lawyers, and judges struggling with the overlapping issues of biology, privacy, and the quest for justice over the estate.
