DNA shocks a woman who wants to inherit her father's property
A woman fighting for the borderof her deceased father has experienced a lot of pain after a DNA test returned the result of32.7 chances of paternity not being established or excluded.This means that the court cannot decide whether the deceased is her father or not. The DNA samples were taken from the deceased's siblings, who are the uncle and aunt of the woman identified as CWK.
The result of this specific test isthat the probability that the two siblings are CWK's grandfather and aunt is 32.7155%, while the probability that they are not CWK is double. Since the data does not support either inclusion or exclusion, anothermedical examination isrecommended, this time involving the relatives of the deceased in order to obtain the best results.
Supreme Court Justice Gregory Mutai said the inconclusive results of the DNA test did not allow the court to make a final decision on whether to cancelthe award to CWK. "From the above, it is clear that the results of the DNA test, if they were inconclusive, would have been negative," said the judge.
Justice Mutai went on to saythat if CWK is found to be the daughter of the deceased, the petitioner and siblings will nothave any right to their brother's land. “Therefore, this court will cancel the award he received. On the other hand, if it is foundthat the CWK is not the daughter of the deceased, then she will not have the right to inherit unless she can prove that the deceased claimed her as his child. Each of them filed aseparate petition of probate against the deceased's estate, both of which contained lettersof grant or letters of administration. The deceased man's brother, who was named in the court documents as a recusant, applied for the annulment ofthe official letters issued to CWK on the grounds that they were obtained fraudulently. The opponent alleged that CWK withheld certain facts about the house from the court. The opponent argued that CWK was not the daughter of the deceased, the family members of the deceased did not know,and that the deceased had only five children, which the woman did not have. The court was also informed that the lower court had granted another jurisdiction in respect of the same land. CWK opposed the annulment of the grant, arguing that although the deceased died without a wife, she was his only child. He explained that the deceased had an affair with hismother, who was not married to his deceased father. He said: “I was made for the family of the deceased. He gave a detailed account of the relationship between the deceased, the rejector, his family and himself, and produced a vaccination certificate that listed the deceased as his father. Inresponse, the respondent also admitted that CWK paid for the funeral of the deceased. “Hepaid for the funeral not as a family member but as a friend. He later asked for a refund of the money he paid,” said the opponent. He also argued that CWK did not ask for his birth certificate to prove that the deceased was indeed his father. To settle the dispute, the judge ordered a DNA test. The court ordered that CWK and the two deceased brothers undergo a DNA test to determine whether the deceased is CWK's father or not. Court records show that the results obtained areinconclusive, and the data does not support either the inclusion or exclusion of the author.
Based on the results of the medical procedure, the applicant asked the court to find that the DNA results, as they stand, showed that CWK isnot the daughter of the deceased. He asked to withdraw the money that was given to him.
CWK replied that the DNA report was meaninglessbecause it did not say that she was not the daughter of the deceased. He insisted that further evidence would remove any doubt about his paternity.
But Judge Mutai refused to rule for the plaintiff based on the DNA test results, which were said to be inconclusive. The judge said that the court must be very careful in any case where the outcome of its decision is clear and binary. "There is a clear and present danger that the rightful beneficiary will be denied hisrightful inheritance or, on the other hand, that a fraudster will take advantage of it," said the judge. said. The judge accepteda plan for a second round of DNA testing with family members to get the full results.“I agree with the proposal. So I looked and found out that DNA results are inconclusive. Therefore, I order that CWK, the petitioner and three other known siblings of the deceased shall undergo a DNA test to determine whether CWK.
The DNA tests will now be conducted at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (Kemri) laboratories in Nairobi.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0