In a case that has stocked controversy a High Court judge has ruled that for a minor child born out of wedlock to be recognised in the late father’s name relatives’ consent is needed.
DNA tests are not even taken into consideration as was done by this female judge who has since been described as ‘stupid’.
Ms Zvikomborero Paunganwa approached the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 12(2) (c) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Chapter 5:02).
The law requires that if the alleged father of a child is deceased, his parents or near relatives should confirm paternity of the child.
In a judgment likely to spark heated debate on women and children’s rights, Justice Priscilla Munangati–Manongwa ruled that the requirements were sensible and within the purview of the law.
She said authorities had to satisfy themselves that the child was indeed fathered by the deceased or that in the very least the family (whose identity the child seeks to assume) accepts that the child was or could have been fathered by one of their own.
The assumption of a family name, said the judge, apart from through marriage, had immense intrinsic immeasurable values as it links one to ancestry, is sealed by blood and points to origin. It was also the court’s view that the legislature’s intention in putting such a requirement was to safeguard the family entity.
Justice Munangati-Manongwa also noted that there would be chaos if on mere say so, the Registrar of Births and Deaths Office was obliged to enter a man’s name in the register as the father to any child.
“The carrying of a family name comes with privileges and responsibility culturally, economically and socially, hence it is to be jealously guarded,” she said.
“Family is central to issues of inheritance where it is important that in the absence of a will, whoever gets to inherit has to be a member of the deceased’s family. As such it is not desirable that family assets end up in the wrong hands.”
Ms Paunganwa was in an unregistered customary law union when she lost her husband on June 10, 2010. This was before the parties procured a birth certificate for a minor child born on April 2 the same year.
When approached to issue a birth certificate for the child in the father’s family name, the RG’s office advised Ms Paunganwa that they could not issue the birth certificate in the absence of the husband’s relatives as required by the law.
The RG’s office advised Paunganwa that alternatively it could only issue the document on the strength of a court order arguing that “doing so in absence of a court order will be in breach of the statute for purposes of governing issuance of vital identity documents”.
Ms Paunganwa was faced with a situation where the late husband’s relatives were not willing to assist. Ms Paunganwa approached the court seeking to compel the RG’s office to issue the minor child with the birth certificate.
The issue for determination was whether or not the provisions of the Act complained of offended what the supreme law of the land provided in Section 81(1) (b) and 81 (1) (c) (i).
Ms Paunganwa argued that as the guardian of her child and being a woman she was being discriminated against in her request to procure a birth certificate for her child.
Ms Paunganwa argued that as the guardian of her child and being a woman she was being discriminated against in her request to procure a birth certificate for her child.
But Justice Munanagti-Manongwa found that in essence, Ms Paunganwa had the capacity to procure a birth certificate. However, the fact that the child was born out of wedlock, assumption of a family name without confirmation from relatives was prohibited by that section.
“In that regard, it is not correct that the applicant is being discriminated upon as a guardian,” she said. “If she so wishes she is able to procure a birth certificate for the child in her own name without the assistance of anyone.”
6 Replies to “STUPID JUDGE: Woman Blocked From Registering Son In Own Father’s Name”
Comments are closed.
The judge is right in this case.
Do you want all and sundry to go and register their whelps as Bokas so they can access his inheritance?
That said, there is also need for the mother to have a way of registering her kid. She knows who bonked her more than the deceased’s family. DNA could be the answer, but it needs to be policed to prevent fraud.
Why anyone would call the good judge stupid is beyond me. The stupid writer of this story must appreciate that the good judge is just interpreting the law and not passing it.
Why not allow the child to undergo DNA tests and compare with family members? Unless the issue has to do with the deceased’s earthly possessions, I don’t see that being a problem. The family should be happy to embrace one of their own.
Why not allow the child to undergo DNA tests and compare with family members? Unless the issue has to do with the deceased’s earthly possessions, I don’t see that being a problem. The family should be happy to embrace one of their own.
2010-2016? Food for thought. I personally concur with the judge’s fears.
2010-2016? Food for thought.