A Cape Town man is challenging a court’s finding that he is the biological father of a child, despite several DNA tests confirming the link.
The man, whose identity is withheld to protect the child, took his case to the Western Cape High Court after the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court ruled that he was the father. Representing himself, he argued that it had not been proven “beyond reasonable doubt” that he is the child’s biological parent.
The case dates back to 2001, when the first paternity test indicated that he was not the father. Years later, in 2016, the child’s mother approached the maintenance court, insisting that he was indeed the biological parent. A second test was ordered in 2017, because the earlier test did not meet accreditation standards. This time, the results showed that he was the father.
A new magistrate later took over the matter and inexplicably ordered a third test in 2019, which again confirmed paternity. The case was then reassigned, and yet another magistrate requested a fourth DNA test. The man objected, bringing an application to have the magistrate recused and the directive set aside. A fourth magistrate eventually ruled that another test was unnecessary and that the court would work with the evidence already on record.
After hearing the case, the court ruled once more that the man was the father.
Still unhappy, he turned to the High Court, arguing that the DNA results were never properly introduced into evidence and should not have carried weight unless supported by expert testimony. He also claimed that the labs that conducted the later tests were not located in the Western Cape and had compared his results to the wrong population group.
He acknowledged knowing the mother years ago but denied ever being romantically involved with her. He said she used to visit his bar in 1999 but that he banned her after she stole a photo—something she later returned. He insisted he had no contact with her again until 2001, when his wife informed him that the woman was claiming he was the father of her four-month-old baby.
The mother’s timeline was inconsistent in several areas, but she remained firm that she and the man were intimate in early August 2000, when the child was conceived.
After reviewing the case, the High Court concluded that even if the maintenance court made errors in handling the DNA evidence, it still reached the correct conclusion. The judges noted that the second and third DNA tests showed a high probability that he was the father, and that DNA testing is a well-established scientific method with strong evidential value.
His appeal was dismissed.