Wakilii

Annette C.N.L Ntulume v Ssekisaka Aron and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2597 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 79 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion arising from civil suit seeking orders for DNA testing to establish kinship among beneficiaries of deceased's estate
Decision
Application for DNA testing dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Application for DNA testing dismissed. Court held that the application lacked good grounds and was not made in good faith, as it relied on a contested will and did not provide evidence beyond the disputed will to question paternity. The court found the proper issue was the validity of the will, not paternity testing, and that only the deceased's children themselves should seek such tests to establish parentage.

Outcome

Application for DNA testing dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents

Facts

The Applicant, widow of late Solomon Kalulwe Ntulume, applied for DNA testing of three respondents claiming to be beneficiaries of the deceased's estate. The application arose from Civil Suit No. 0244 of 2022. The Applicant contended that the deceased's will mentioned only three children (Eleanor Mary Kiwuka, Jack Majwega, and Ethel Zigyana) but omitted the 1st Respondent (Ssekisaka Aron), raising doubt about his paternity. The 1st and 3rd Respondents had filed suit claiming inheritance rights and incorrectly declared the Applicant deceased. The Applicant sought kinship testing of all respondents using DNA from a relative of the deceased, as no stored DNA sample existed. The 1st and 3rd Respondents opposed, arguing the Applicant found them being raised by the deceased during his lifetime. The 2nd Respondent, the Applicant's biological daughter with the deceased, supported the application. The validity of the will itself was contested in the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents should be subjected to a scientific DNA test.
  2. What is the most appropriate procedure for carrying out the DNA test.

Orders

  • Application dismissed wholly.
  • Costs of the Application to be borne by the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — DNA Testing — Discretionary Power of Court — Good Faith Requirement
In exercising its discretionary power to grant or refuse DNA testing, the court must be convinced that the application is made in good faith, that there are good grounds for making the application, and that the application is not actuated by malice or designed to economically exploit or embarrass or is otherwise an abuse of court process.
Evidence — DNA Testing — Paternity — Disputed Will as Insufficient Grounds
A contested will whose validity has not been determined cannot be relied upon as evidence to question the paternity of alleged children of the deceased, particularly where no other evidence is adduced beyond the disputed will to support the challenge.
Succession — Beneficiaries — DNA Testing — Standing to Apply
Children of the deceased, and not other persons such as surviving spouses, are the appropriate parties to seek DNA testing to establish paternity, particularly where the deceased during his lifetime did not deny paternity and where the children were openly raised and provided for by the deceased.
Evidence — DNA Testing — Paternity versus Kinship Testing — Accuracy Requirements
The only method of establishing paternity with 100% accuracy is testing against the DNA of the father who is the primary source; alternative methods such as testing against relatives or siblings are not 100% accurate because one cannot be certain that the said siblings or relatives are themselves biological children or relations of the father they claim.
Evidence — DNA Testing — Sibling Kinship Testing — Gender-Specific Limitations
Sibling kinship testing has scientific limitations based on chromosomal analysis: male siblings share a Y chromosome from their father and can be tested against each other, while female siblings share a significant X chromosome from their father and must be tested against other female siblings; cross-gender kinship testing between male and female siblings cannot determine paternity with the required accuracy.
Succession — Contested Will — Priority in Determination
Where the validity of a will is contested, the court must first determine whether the deceased died testate or intestate before addressing collateral issues such as the paternity of alleged beneficiaries, as resolution of the will's validity will determine the appropriate framework for identifying rightful beneficiaries.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (9)

  • MW v KC (Miscellaneous Application No. 0105 of 2004)
  • Mukwaya Badru v Ssentamu Moses and Others (Civil Appeal No. 0019 of 2021)
  • Mpumwire Magambo v Amanda Magambo (Miscellaneous Application No. 0293 of 2023)
  • Tendo Sunitah v Annet Tumwebaze Mugasha (Miscellaneous Application No. 0957 of 2023)
  • Sserunjogi Charles and Another v Tony Nkuubi (Originating Summons No. 0007 of 2019)
  • Elivaida Ndyabahika v Adyeri Hope Florence (Miscellaneous Application No. 0069 of 2019)
  • Makokha Benrox v Blessing Brenda Namatovu (Civil Revision No. 0009 of 2022)
  • Komakech Walter versus Dr. Okot Christopher
  • Doughterty versus Mercantile Safe Deposit and Trust Company, 387 A.2d 244, 246-47 (Md. 1978)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Annette C.N.L Ntulume v Ssekisaka Aron and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2597 of 2024) [2025] UGHCFD 79 (24 February 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.