Wakilii

Justine Katantazi v Sylvia Nampijja (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 7 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for DNA testing arising from civil suit concerning estate administration and disputed paternity
Decision
Application allowed in part; sibling kinship DNA test ordered instead of exhumation; respondent to undergo DNA testing with applicant's three children

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

The High Court held that the applicant, as mother of three minor children of the deceased, has locus standi to seek DNA testing to determine the respondent's claimed paternity. The court ordered a sibling kinship DNA test between the respondent and the applicant's three children rather than exhumation of the deceased's body. The court found that a photocopy birth certificate without supporting documentation was insufficient to establish paternity conclusively, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant given the estate administration was stalled by the paternity dispute.

Outcome

Application allowed in part; sibling kinship DNA test ordered instead of exhumation; respondent to undergo DNA testing with applicant's three children

Facts

The applicant claimed she married the deceased Robert Kaweesi in 2022 and had three children with him. The respondent filed a civil suit claiming to be the biological daughter of the deceased and seeking recognition as beneficiary of his estate. The applicant challenged the respondent's paternity and sought orders for DNA testing, including exhumation of the deceased's body. The respondent relied on a birth certificate issued in 2009 naming Robert Kaweesi as her father, but produced only a photocopy without supporting documentation. The applicant lodged a caveat preventing estate administration. The respondent opposed DNA testing and exhumation. The applicant's three children with the deceased are minors residing in Birmingham, UK.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has locus standi to challenge the respondent's paternity through subjecting her to a DNA test?
  2. Whether the applicant has made out a proper case for this court to order for a DNA test to be conducted on the respondent and the deceased by exhuming his body?

Orders

  • An order is hereby issued that the respondent hereby undergoes a DNA paternity test involving the respondent and the three children (Harvey Katongole, Lucas Junior Ssenyondo and Zoe Matilda Natoolo) to determine the respondent's paternity.
  • An order is hereby issued that the respondent together with the applicant's three children mentioned above avail themselves and provide DNA samples for collection at any recognized Analytical Laboratory in Birmingham since they reside there or at the Analytical Laboratory in Wandegeya, Kampala within one month after the delivery of this ruling.
  • An order is hereby issued that the DNA testing process is monitored by both parties and any other independent person to ensure transparency, fairness and the results not being tampered with.
  • An order is hereby issued that the results of the DNA test in regard to the Paternity of the respondent be forwarded to this Honorable court by that hospital addressed to The judiciary of Uganda to be forwarded to MPIGI High court.
  • The costs of the DNA test shall be borne by each party.
  • No order as to costs for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Family Law — Paternity — Locus Standi — Mother of Minor Children
A mother of minor children fathered by a deceased person has locus standi to challenge the paternity of another person claiming to be a child of the deceased where the minor children are beneficiaries of the estate and cannot themselves apply for letters of administration due to their age.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Birth Certificates — Reliability and Rebuttal
A photocopy of a birth certificate without certification, NIRA confirmation, or supporting documents such as baptism cards, school records, or medical records is insufficient to establish paternity conclusively. The presumption created by entry in the register of births under the Children's Act is rebuttable and may be disproved through DNA testing or other evidence.
Evidence — DNA Testing — Discretion of Court — Principles for Ordering
Courts should not order DNA testing as a matter of course or routine. The court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and considering whether DNA testing is eminently needed for a just decision. The application must be made in good faith and not designed to economically exploit, embarrass, or abuse the process of court.
Family Law — Paternity — DNA Testing — Sibling Kinship Test as Alternative to Exhumation
Where a deceased person is survived by children whose paternity is undisputed, a sibling kinship DNA test comparing those children with a person claiming to be their sibling can determine paternity without the need to exhume the deceased's body. Courts should order exhumation for DNA paternity testing only as a last resort.
Succession & Estates — Exhumation — Principles Governing — Sanctity of the Grave
It is presumed that a decently buried body should remain undisturbed where it was placed unless good reason is given to exhume it. The law does not favour disinterment based on public policy that the sanctity of the grave should be maintained. Exhumation is allowable only where there are compelling reasons and should be ordered only as a last resort.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Paternity — Children's Act
Under section 113 of the Children's Act, the burden to prove parentage lies on the person alleging it. This burden does not shift even where a birth certificate is produced, as the presumption created by the birth certificate is rebuttable.
Civil Procedure — Balance of Convenience — Estate Administration — Minor Beneficiaries
In determining whether to grant an application for DNA testing in the context of estate administration, the balance of convenience favours the applicant where minor children are unable to access the estate due to a caveat lodged pending resolution of a paternity dispute, and where the respondent would not be prejudiced by the testing.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (18)

  • Dr. Vincent Byaruhanga t/a Friend's Polyclinic v Insurance Corporation and URA [2008] HCB 151
  • Njau and Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976] EA 397
  • Dima Domnic Poro v Inyani Godfrey (High Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • Re Estate of John Kihara alias Kihara John (deceased) [2021] EKLR
  • Muzoora v Kabanyomozi (Civil Suit No. 71 of 2019) [2022] UGHC 40
  • Serunjogi Charles Musoke and Another v Tony Nkuubi (Originating Summons No. 07 of 2019)
  • MMM V ENW M.A No. 7 of 2016
  • BPs V CS Civil Appeal No. 6222-6223 of 2010
  • MW v KC Kakamega High Court Mis. Application No. 105 of 2004
  • C.N.L Ntulume v Ssekisaka Aron and 2 Others (High Court Civil Application No. 2597 of 2024)
  • Joyce Loumo Choudry v Musinguzi Henry Bitature and Sanyu Magret (Civil Application No. 0406 of 2025)
  • Kazooba David Guma v Mugisha (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 004 of 2014)
  • Mumbere William and another V Masika Joy
  • Komaketch Walter v Dr. Okot (High Court Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2018)
  • Mpumirwe Magambo v Amanda Magambo (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2023)
  • Jayndrakumar D.D v Haridas V.B and Another (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)
  • Mpumwire Magambo v Amanda Magambo (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0293 of 2023)
  • Komaketch Walter v Dr. Okot Christopher (High Court Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Justine Katantazi v Sylvia Nampijja (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 7 (7 January 2026)
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.