A Cape Town paternity case spanning more than two decades has reached the Supreme Court of Appeal, with a man seeking special leave to challenge a High Court ruling that upheld a finding that he is the biological father of a child.
The man’s name has not been published to protect the child’s privacy. According to IOL, he filed the SCA application after the Western Cape High Court dismissed his appeal in November 2025.
The dispute began in 2016 when the child’s mother approached the maintenance court. However, the case traces back to a 2001 DNA test that excluded the man as the father. Questions later arose because that laboratory was not accredited by the South African National Accreditation System, known as SANAS.
Court-directed DNA tests in 2017 and 2019 then produced different results. Both reportedly showed a probability of paternity above 99.9999%, according to the IOL report.
DNA Evidence Sits at Centre of Legal Dispute
The Cape Town paternity case now turns on how courts should treat DNA reports when expert evidence has not been fully tested in oral testimony.
In the High Court, Acting Judge Andrew Morrisey, with Judge Andre Le Grange concurring, found that the man had not overturned the maintenance court’s decision. The court said the DNA evidence and testimony about the relationship between the parties had to be considered together.
“The probabilities shift in the respondent’s favour,” the court said, according to IOL, when the two sources of evidence were viewed as a composite whole.
A legal analysis of the matter noted that the case raised questions about documentary evidence, expert testimony and the civil standard of proof. It also said the court treated the DNA documents as having some probative value, even though contested expert evidence would usually be tested through cross-examination.
Man Argues Courts Relied on Untested Documents
In his SCA application, the man argues that the lower courts made scientific findings from DNA reports, emails and letters without hearing oral expert evidence. He also challenges the handling of documents linked to a laboratory director, Dr York, including claims that some testing was outsourced to Germany.
He further claims the High Court relied on a conception timeline that he says did not form part of the mother’s evidence. According to IOL, he wants the SCA to give guidance on how courts should evaluate DNA documentation in paternity disputes.
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s published judgments page lists delivered judgments, but no ruling on this special leave application was found at the time of writing.