Wakilii

Ndyabahika v Adyeri (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 206 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision arising from a civil suit concerning paternity
Decision
Application dismissed; DNA testing using deceased father's samples to proceed as previously ordered

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 leave to appeal dismissed. Court held that leave to appeal from an interlocutory order is granted only where prima facie there are grounds meriting serious judicial consideration. The applicant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law warranting leave. The court reaffirmed that DNA testing using samples of the alleged father is the only sure way to determine paternity and avoid multiplicity of proceedings under Judicature Act s.33.

Outcome

Application dismissed; DNA testing using deceased father's samples to proceed as previously ordered

Facts

The applicant Elvaida Ndyabahika, stepmother of the late Henry Ndyabahika, sought leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision ordering DNA testing to determine the paternity of the respondent Adyeri Hope Florence. The applicant contested that the respondent is the biological daughter of Henry Ndyabahika and argued that DNA samples from the applicant's children would be better than samples from the deceased father. The underlying civil suit concerned a paternity dispute in which the applicant and her children denied that the respondent is Henry Ndyabahika's daughter.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an interlocutory decision ordering DNA testing using samples from the late Henry Ndyabahika to determine paternity of the respondent.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Earlier order for DNA testing process to be completed within two months confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Interlocutory Orders — Test for Granting Leave
Leave to appeal from an order of court in civil proceedings is granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds which merit serious judicial consideration, and is only necessary where the applicant has no automatic right of appeal.
Evidence — DNA Testing — Paternity — Proper Samples for Testing
DNA testing with samples from an alleged sibling can only be resorted to if samples from the alleged father cannot be obtained; resemblance can never be a basis for determining blood relationship, and paternity must be scientifically proven through DNA testing using samples of the alleged father or mother.
Civil Procedure — Judicature Act s.33 — Avoiding Multiplicity of Proceedings
Under Judicature Act s.33, the High Court shall grant such remedies as are necessary so that all matters in controversy between parties may be completely and finally determined and multiplicity of legal proceedings avoided; in paternity disputes, DNA testing using samples of the alleged father is the proper means to avoid future multiplicity of proceedings.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sango Bay Ltd v Dresdner (1971) E.A. 17

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ndyabahika Vs Adyeri (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 206 (9 July 2019)
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.