Wakilii

Mutyaba Steven v Nakiyimba Majorine (Miscellaneous Application 7070 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCFD 48 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend pleadings and for DNA testing arising from pending divorce proceedings
Decision
Application dismissed; main divorce proceedings to continue

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 dismissed an application for leave to amend pleadings to dispute paternity and for DNA testing where both parties had closed evidence in the main divorce proceedings. The court held that granting the amendment at such an advanced stage would cause grave injustice to the respondent by requiring the entire matter to be relitigated. The application for DNA testing was refused on the ground that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient cause, relying solely on untested hearsay evidence without corroborative documentation. The court preserved the applicant's right to institute independent paternity proceedings after conclusion of the divorce suit.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main divorce proceedings to continue

Facts

The applicant and respondent were parties to divorce proceedings (Divorce Cause No. 219 of 2022) concerning three minors born between 2010 and 2014. The applicant had filed an Answer to the Petition acknowledging the respondent's infidelity resulting in a fourth child by another man during his absence in the United States. Both parties had closed their evidence in the main suit by September 2025. During trial preparation, the applicant's witness, a former housemaid, allegedly disclosed that the respondent had engaged in sexual relations with other men as far back as 2014. Based on this information, the applicant sought leave to amend his Answer to dispute paternity of the three minors and to obtain DNA testing. The respondent denied any infidelity prior to the births and produced birth certificates naming the applicant as father. She raised preliminary objections concerning defects in the supporting affidavit and abuse of process.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend his Answer to the Petition at this stage of the proceedings?
  2. Whether this Court should issue an order directing DNA examination of the three minors?
  3. What orders as to costs are appropriate?

Orders

  • Application for leave to amend the Answer to the Petition declined.
  • Application for an order directing DNA examination of the three minors declined.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Main Petition (Divorce Cause No. 219 of 2022) to proceed to conclusion, hearing scheduled for 17th June 2026 at 2:00pm.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Late Stage Amendment — Prejudice to Opposing Party
Where both parties have closed their evidence in the main suit, leave to amend pleadings to introduce an entirely new controversy will be refused if it would necessitate reopening the entire matter and cause grave injustice to the opposing party who would be required to reassemble witnesses and evidence concerning events that occurred many years earlier.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Change of Cause of Action — Advanced Stage of Proceedings
An amendment that introduces an entirely new controversy with its own procedural requirements and evidentiary demands, rather than merely supplementing existing pleadings, will not be permitted at an advanced stage of proceedings where it would transform the character of the case and require the entire matter to be relitigated on a new front.
Family Law — Paternity — DNA Testing — Threshold Requirements
Before a court will order DNA testing to determine paternity, the applicant must demonstrate that the application is made in good faith, there are good and reasonable grounds for making it, the application is not actuated by malice or designed to embarrass the opposing party, and the order would not be an abuse of the court's process.
Evidence — DNA Testing — Sufficiency of Grounds — Hearsay Evidence
An application for DNA testing founded solely on untested hearsay evidence from a witness who has not given oral testimony under cross-examination, without any direct, documentary, or corroborative evidence of the alleged conduct, does not demonstrate sufficient cause to justify a DNA testing order.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defects in Jurat — Place of Swearing
An incorrect statement of the place of swearing in an affidavit jurat, where the affidavit is otherwise properly notarized by a duly commissioned officer and the deponent's identity is not in dispute, constitutes an irregularity that does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to entertain the application, rather than a fatal defect requiring dismissal.
Family Law — Paternity — Child's Right to Know Biological Origins — Procedural Safeguards
While a child has a fundamental constitutional and statutory right to know his or her biological origins and genetic parentage plays a vital role in a child's identity, this right does not operate in a procedural vacuum and courts must balance it against procedural fairness and the requirement that sufficient cause be shown before ordering compelled DNA testing.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Michael Isingoma v Law Development Centre (HCMA No. 234 of 2019)
  • Bet City (U) Ltd & Another v Swangz Avenue (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 1177 of 2020)
  • Attorney General & Another v James Mark Kamoga (SCCA No. 8 of 2004)
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala (SCCA No. 4 of 1994)
  • Ashiraf Kironde v Kobil (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 828 of 2021)
  • Tendo v Tumwebaze (HCMA No. 957 of 2023)
  • Charles Sserunjogi Musoke & Another v Tonny Nkuubi (Originating Summons No. 07 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mutyaba Steven v Nakiyimba Majorine (Miscellaneous Application 7070 of 2025) [2026] UGHCFD 48 (11 May 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.