A man has lost his bid to ascertain the paternity of a child born after he separated from the mother.
High Court Judge John Onyiego ruled that there was no need to do a DNA test for the second time as the first one had proved that he did not father the minor.
The Judge was of the view that another test would subject the child to unnecessary psychological trauma.
He stated that from the counterarguments, it was clear that the contested child was born two years after the couple parted ways.
"From the above and as already stated, simple arithmetic shows that the minor herein was born way after the three-month mandatory Iddah period. The subject herein was born after more than two years from the time the appellant and the second respondent separated,” said Justice Onyiego.
"Besides, the appellant having sought for the DNA testing, the results returned showed that indeed he was not the biological father of the minor," he noted.
In the case, the court heard the man, code-named BAY, married a woman, code-named LMI, in 1993. However, they parted ways. Both are Muslims and had seven children before the marriage hit the rocks.
The man told the court that after parting ways, LMI ought to have observed a mandatory Iddah period (three months before remarrying). However, he stated that he learned immediately after parting ways that she was pregnant.
He asked the court to force LMI to avail the minor for a DNA test to ascertain if he was the father or not. BAY asserted that the right of the child to know his biological father was at stake.
The woman asked the court to dismiss the case. She argued that after delivering the lastborn, the man suffered from impotence and had failed to meet her conjugal rights.
She claimed that BAY became violent when she tried to handle the situation. She said she did a pregnancy test after divorcing him and confirmed she was not pregnant.
BAY claimed his ex-wife got married to a second man, code-named MA, for 15 months and thereafter, she married a third one.
The court heard that the third marriage happened one year after separation from MA. She told the court that the minor belonged to the third man.
The court ordered that a first DNA be done. The test indicated that BAY was not the father.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
However, he insisted that there should be a fresh test. He claimed that the laboratory staff had allegedly conspired with his ex-wife to give a negative result.
On the other hand, LMI stated that after the marriage hit the rocks, they both went before elders and BAY insisted that she must be tested for pregnancy before parting ways.
She asserted that the court should not entertain the case as the father of the minor was known.