Wakilii

Ntulume v Ssekisaka & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 2597 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 5 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for DNA testing arising from civil suit concerning administration of estate
Decision
Application dismissed with costs against the applicant

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 court dismissed an application for DNA testing to determine paternity and kinship among alleged beneficiaries of a deceased estate. The court held that the application was not made in good faith and lacked good grounds, where paternity was contested solely on the basis of a disputed Will that was itself under contestation in the main suit. The court found that determining the validity of the Will was the proper first step, and that paternity questions should be raised by the children themselves, not by third parties where the deceased never disputed paternity during his lifetime.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs against the applicant

Facts

The applicant widow of Solomon Kalulwe Ntulume applied for DNA testing of three respondents (two males and one female) claiming to be children of the deceased. The applicant argued that the first respondent was not mentioned in the deceased's Will and was not listed when executors applied for probate in 1998. The first and third respondents had filed a civil suit claiming shares in the estate. The applicant sought a kinship test using a control sample from a relative of the deceased, as no DNA sample from the deceased was preserved. The first and third respondents opposed, arguing they were raised by the deceased during his lifetime and he never denied paternity. The second respondent (applicant's biological daughter) supported the application. A prior application for DNA testing by another party had been dismissed for lack of locus standi.

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

DNA Testing — Principles for Court Ordering Scientific DNA Tests
In exercising its discretionary power to order DNA testing, the court must be convinced that the application is made in good faith, has good grounds, and is not actuated by malice or designed to economically exploit or embarrass or otherwise abuse the court process.
Paternity Disputes — Contested Wills Cannot Be Basis for Challenging Paternity
Where the authenticity or validity of a Will is under contestation in substantive proceedings, it is improper to rely on the contents of that disputed Will as evidence to challenge the paternity of alleged children in interlocutory applications.
Paternity — Standing to Contest Paternity of Children Accepted by Father
Where a deceased father raised and cared for children during his lifetime and never disputed their paternity, third parties (other than the children themselves) lack good grounds to contest the paternity of those children after the father's death, particularly where the children were found in the father's care at the time of marriage to the applicant.
DNA Testing — Paternity Tests Distinguished from Kinship Tests
The only way of establishing 100% accuracy of paternity is from the father who is the primary source. Testing against relatives or siblings through kinship tests are not 100% accurate because one cannot be certain that the alleged siblings are children of the father they claim to be.
DNA Testing — Limitations of Sibling Kinship Tests by Gender
Sibling kinship tests must be conducted between siblings of the same sex: male children sharing the Y chromosome from a common father can be tested against each other to confirm brotherhood, and female children sharing a significant X chromosome from a common father can be tested against each other to confirm sisterhood. A kinship test cannot be carried out between opposite sex siblings due to chromosomal differences, rendering such tests ineffective where no same-sex sibling exists for comparison.
Estate Administration — Priority of Determining Testacy Before Addressing Paternity
Where the validity of a Will is disputed and determinative of who are the rightful beneficiaries of an estate, the court should first resolve whether the deceased died testate or intestate before entertaining applications to determine paternity of alleged beneficiaries. The paternity issue is premature until the validity of the Will is determined.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (11)

  • MW v KC (Miscellaneous Application No. 0105 of 2004)
  • Mukwaya Badru v Ssentamu Moses & 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 & Anor 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)
  • Sserunjogi Charles Musoke & Katamba John Ssemakula v Tonny Nkuubi (Originating Summons No. 0007 of 2019)
  • MW v KC (Miscellaneous Application No. 0105 of 2004)
  • 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.

Ntulume v Ssekisaka & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 2597 of 2024) [2025] UGHCFD 5 (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.