There's no turning back on DNA test, a court has told a man who had consented to the test to determine the paternity of a minor but backtracked.
Justice Aggrey Muchelule said the man, named in court papers as KPM, had failed to convince him that the magistrate's court order that he should undergo the DNA test were in bad faith.
The judge noted that the best interests of the minor are at the heart of the five-year court battle and ordered the man to undergo the test as earlier planned.
He said the case is meant to enable the minor to know whether KPM is his biological father.
The court heard the man had an affair with a woman codenamed JWK and the minor was the product of their relationship.
All of the minor's documents show KPM as the father.
"...a child has the right to be registered at birth, to have a name and its nationality indicated. He has the right to have the name of his parents indicated in his birth documents.
"Having an identity is a fundamental right which allows the child to enjoy all his other rights. Identity encompasses the family name, the surname, date of birth, gender, and nationality," said Justice Muchelule.
The judge said the child's identity is in limbo after the woman claimed the man was not the minor's biological father yet he already had KPM's name.
KPM's relationship with JWK hit rock bottom in 2014 after KPM went to Australia and left the child with the mother. The man later filed a case seeking the custody of the minor.
In her reply, the woman told the Children's Court that KPM is not the father of the minor. She asked the court to order a DNA test. This was done on November 21, 2018, and they both agreed to have the test.
However, the man changed his mind and opposed the DNA test saying it would be an intrusion in to his privacy.
JWK filed a formal application which the magistrate's court agreed with. The man moved to the High Court arguing that the magistrate erred.