Factual Background: A Protracted Paternity Dispute Spanning Two Decades
This appeal concerned a finding by the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court, sitting as a maintenance court, that the appellant was the biological father of Z.W., a child born on 23 May 2001. What distinguishes this matter from the routine paternity dispute is the extraordinary procedural journey that preceded the appeal—a journey spanning nearly a decade of litigation, multiple magistrates, lost court records, and four separate DNA tests.
The respondent initially approached the maintenance court in 2016, some fifteen years after Z’s birth. It appears that a first paternity test had been conducted in 2001 by a laboratory called UNISTEL, which excluded the appellant as Z’s father. However, this test had not been undertaken by a laboratory accredited with the South African National Accreditation System, commonly known as SANAS. Magistrate Van der Sputy apparently directed that a second test be conducted by a SANAS-accredited laboratory to assist in determining the paternity allegation.
The second test was conducted in April 2017 by Molecular Diagnostic Services, referred to throughout the proceedings as MDS. This test concluded that the probability of the appellant being Z’s biological father was greater than 99.9999%. The matter then proceeded before Magistrate Burick, who heard evidence from Dr Marx and Dr York, the signatories to the first and second tests respectively, and possibly also from a SANAS representative. Regrettably, the record of that evidence was subsequently lost—a factor that would cast a long shadow over the subsequent proceedings.
Shortly before closing arguments were to be made before Magistrate Burick, the magistrate ordered that a third paternity test be conducted. The reasons for this direction remain unclear from the record, though it may have been because the magistrate considered that no finding could be made on the first two tests, or alternatively because Dr York had indicated that more reliable testing could be done. The third test was conducted in December 2019 and reached the same conclusion as the second test: a probability of paternity greater than 99.9999%.
The matter was then transferred to Magistrate Boltman for a hearing de novo. In September 2022, Magistrate Boltman ordered the appellant to submit to a fourth paternity test. The appellant challenged this direction by instituting proceedings in the High Court to recuse Magistrate Boltman and to review the order for a fourth test. Both applications failed, though the review may have been dismissed on technical grounds relating to the proper remedy being an appeal rather than review.
The matter was subsequently allocated to Magistrate Lawrence to hear de novo, apparently because the office directed her to do so, possibly due to the inability to locate the record of previous proceedings. When the matter came before Magistrate Lawrence in September 2024, the first issue to be determined was whether the appellant should be compelled to submit to the fourth paternity test that Magistrate Boltman had ordered.
The appellant resisted this direction, pointing out that he had already subjected himself to three tests. He submitted that he had never been properly informed of his right to refuse DNA testing and that such refusal would only affect his credibility at the hearing. He raised concerns about the second and third tests, contending that they were inconclusive based on SANAS guidelines which stipulated that paternity shall be excluded if there are two or more exclusions at tested loci. Both the second and third tests had revealed such mismatches, yet had nevertheless concluded a high probability of paternity.
Magistrate Lawrence ruled that the appellant need not submit to a fourth test. The magistrate’s reasoning was that no previous court had made findings on the admissibility or probative value of the three tests already conducted, and that the maintenance court should be afforded an opportunity to make such findings using section 10(5) of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998 and the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 together.
The hearing then proceeded on the question of paternity itself. Both the appellant and respondent testified. No expert evidence was led. However, at the conclusion of evidence, the maintenance officer handed up the 2001 and 2017 test results, and the appellant handed up his own pack of documents which included the 2019 test results. The parties filed heads of argument, with the appellant’s submissions addressing the DNA tests extensively and including various documents in a supporting bundle, notably emails from Dr York discussing the test results.
Magistrate Lawrence ultimately found that the appellant was Z’s biological father. The magistrate disregarded the third test due to concerns about it having been conducted in Germany, but found the second test to have greater probative value than the first test because MDS was SANAS-approved with strict procedures and standards, whereas the same could not be said of UNISTEL. The magistrate also found that the appellant had failed to rebut the prima facie proof of the 2016 results.
The appellant noted his appeal late but sought condonation, which was granted without opposition. His notice of appeal raised seventeen points of law and forty-six points of fact, though his heads of argument indicated that forty-four grounds should be considered with the balance effectively abandoned. Both parties were unrepresented at the appeal hearing, though the appellant explained that he had received legal assistance from a third party in preparing his appeal papers. The respondent filed a notice to abide the outcome.
The Admissibility of DNA Evidence Without Expert Testimony: Reconciling Documentary Evidence Principles with Practical Realities
The central legal issue on appeal was whether the maintenance court had erred in admitting and relying upon the paternity test results and accompanying correspondence from Dr York when no expert had been called to testify. The appellant submitted that these documents were never properly introduced into evidence and that, even if admitted, no weight could be placed on them because they constituted expert evidence requiring oral testimony to be admissible. The appellant’s position was stark: the tests should have been completely ignored.
The court began its analysis by setting out the foundational principles governing the admissibility of documentary evidence. Without statutory intervention, documentary evidence will only be admitted where the original document is produced and its authenticity is established. Authenticity requires establishing what the document is and that it has not been altered. In straightforward cases, this is achieved by calling the author to testify as to the document’s originality, its nature, and that it has not been tampered with.
Crucially, the court emphasised that the mere admission of a document into evidence does not entail admission of evidence as to its contents. A letter recording that certain events occurred will not constitute proof of those events simply by virtue of being admitted. At best, it establishes that the author wrote about them on a particular date. However, the court acknowledged that the mere admission of documents may nevertheless have probative value in certain circumstances.
The court provided illustrations of when admitted documents acquire probative value despite the absence of evidence proving their contents. The most obvious example is where the signing of a document has legal implications in itself, such as the conclusion of a contract or execution of a will. Beyond this, admitted documents can serve to introduce contemporaneous evidence that buttresses other evidence before the court. A letter recording that the author saw a person at a particular place on a particular date, even if no witness confirms the facts in the letter, can support oral evidence from that person that they were indeed at that place on that date. The contemporaneous nature of the letter tends to support the probabilities of the oral evidence being true, though the weight will depend on the circumstances.
The court noted that strict principles regarding documentary admissibility are often relaxed in civil cases for practical reasons. Matters involving large volumes of correspondence would be unduly protracted if every document required individual proof. Parties frequently conclude agreements regarding the status of discovered documents or those included in trial bundles, typically creating a default position that all documents may be admitted while reserving the right to challenge contentious ones.
Turning to expert evidence, the court described it as a broad exception to the general rule excluding opinion evidence. Such evidence is permitted where a court requires assistance in areas of expertise it does not possess. The wide extent of specialised knowledge in modern society means expert evidence is often necessary—from structural engineers explaining building collapses to doctors determining time of death, and even lawyers explaining foreign law. Court rules require parties in civil cases intending to call expert evidence to give notice and provide a summary of the expert’s opinions to avoid surprise.
The court endorsed the appellant’s submission that while a court will be guided by expert evidence, it will not be led by it. The ultimate determination remains the court’s function. In contested cases, this may involve preferring one expert’s evidence over another’s—conceptually a preference on matters of opinion rather than fact. Such disputed opinions are adjudicated through testimony tested by cross-examination. The court also noted that practical considerations encourage limiting disputes between experts, who often meet beforehand to identify areas of agreement that can be removed from contention.
The appellant relied heavily on these orthodox principles to contend that the paternity tests and Dr York’s correspondence could not be admitted without calling witnesses to prove them, and that even if admitted, the expert opinions they contained were inadmissible without oral testimony. The court acknowledged this submission had considerable force in principle but ultimately rejected it in the specific circumstances of this case.
The court found that although no witnesses testified as to the originality and authenticity of the documents, the maintenance court was not precluded from admitting them. There had never been any dispute that the three tests were undertaken on approximately the dates indicated or that Dr York sent his email to the maintenance officer. Except possibly regarding the third test, there was no serious dispute about the outcome of the scientific testing in the sense that it identified similarities and dissimilarities between genetic material submitted.
More significantly, the court found that throughout the proceedings, the appellant had clearly indicated his satisfaction that the court could have regard to these documents. He referred to them when arguing against a fourth test being ordered. He made no objection when the maintenance officer handed up the tests at the conclusion of evidence. On the contrary, he handed up his own pack of documentation including the test results, incorporated them into his heads of argument, and discussed them extensively in his evidence. At one point he explicitly stated there were three tests on record. Such conduct would leave the maintenance court, respondent and maintenance officer in no doubt that these results were to form part of the record.
The court considered this conduct particularly significant given the broader context: the testing had been directed by the court itself. As the party directing that testing be undertaken, it would have been anomalous if, absent a formal objection, the tests did not form part of the record. The court concluded it was not open for the appellant to contest admission of these documents on appeal or to claim the matter should have been determined as if they were not before the court.
However, the court drew a careful distinction between admissibility and weight, noting that whether everything said in the documents must be accepted was a different inquiry. The three tests did more than merely provide evidence that paternity testing occurred—they revealed results and contained expert opinions on what those results meant regarding whether the appellant was Z’s father. This was appropriately characterised as a question requiring expert evidence.
The court analyzed the competing positions on the test results. The appellant relied on all three tests revealing a mismatch in two loci tested, placing importance on SANAS requirements stating that paternity shall be excluded if there is a mismatch between two or more loci. Dr York’s email acknowledged this mismatch but explained it did not necessarily mean the appellant was not Z’s father. The appellant used this email to contend there was insufficient certainty to conclude paternity, though the court rejected his further allegation of fraud on Dr York’s behalf as not fairly drawn from the papers.
The court agreed with the appellant that insofar as he contended the maintenance court was precluded from accepting as evidence the expert conclusions in the test results and Dr York’s email, this submission was correctly made. This approach was appropriate because it provides safeguards preventing reliance on untested evidence. The court noted that Dr York had previously testified regarding the second test in the same matter, yet there was no meaningful indication why he was not called when the matter was heard again. For all the court knew, Dr York might have refused to testify because his views would not withstand scrutiny, or perhaps he was not called because the respondent could not cover his fee. The proper way to address such uncertainties would be to call Dr York to explain his views or at least explain his absence.
Nevertheless, the court found that the test results and Dr York’s email could have probative value purely from being admitted into evidence. That DNA testing can reliably determine paternity is a fact so notorious that courts may accept it without evidence—underscored by the fact that courts may direct such testing in disputed paternity cases without requiring expert evidence showing it may assist. On their face, the test results revealed that testing occurred, that the first test excluded paternity due to two-loci mismatches, that the second and third tests showed such mismatches but nevertheless concluded high probability of paternity, that all three tests produced the same results for common loci tested, and that Dr York considered the two-loci mismatch nevertheless left it highly probable the appellant was Z’s father.
These considerations rendered the test results and Dr York’s email similar to the hypothetical letter illustration: the fact that an accepted approach for determining paternity produced a result indicating material commonality of genetic material between the appellant and Z could serve to augment other evidence, even without accepting the expert evidence embedded in the documents. While the question of whether paternity was established to the extent required by SANAS or the scientific community could not be established on mere admission of these documents, they could be used to buttress other evidence because they prima facie indicated the appellant and Z were related.
The court was careful to clarify its reasoning, emphasising it was not suggesting parties intending to rely on expert evidence could do so upon reliance on an expert summary without leading the expert. Rather, in civil cases where a court is presented with expert evidence constituting results of an accepted scientific technique or commentary thereon, it may in appropriate circumstances be relied upon to buttress other evidence aligned to such results. The extent depends on the case’s facts, and typically a party would be best served by calling evidence to confirm the results.
The court then addressed whether the documents could be admitted under section 12(3) of the Maintenance Act, which provides that any person against whom a maintenance order may be made may come to an arrangement with the maintenance officer that statements may be submitted as evidence notwithstanding lack of service. Although both parties claimed to rely on Dr York’s email, the court found this was arguably inadequate to constitute the arrangement contemplated. The court also agreed with the appellant that requirements of section 22 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965 were not met regarding either the test results or Dr York’s email.
Accordingly, the court respectfully differed from the maintenance court’s view that the documents could be admitted under the CPEA or the Maintenance Act, concluding this constituted a misdirection. It followed that the maintenance court had erred in weighing the first and second reports as it had done. However, the court found the maintenance court was permitted to note that the three tests produced generally consistent results where the same loci were tested, with outcomes almost invariably the same across all three tests. The court was also entitled to note that MDS was SANAS-accredited and that UNISTEL had indicated correlation between all nine loci tested would provide substantial certainty of paternity.
Furthermore, the court considered the maintenance court could review the SANAS guidelines to ascertain that SANAS required testing to certain standards, required probability of paternity greater than 99.8% before issuing a report not excluding the alleged father, and that paternity should be excluded on mismatch of two or more loci. The court was also entitled to place weight on the fact that two of the three tests indicating probability of paternity showed high probability percentages, and that no expert evidence—documentary or otherwise—challenged that calculation even on a purely statistical basis assuming the testing was otherwise accurate.
The combined effect of these facts entitled the court to find, prima facie, that the court-ordered testing indicated a material degree of genetic commonality between the appellant and Z. This prima facie evidence could then be weighed alongside the oral evidence of the parties in determining whether paternity had been established on the balance of probabilities.
The Court’s Approach to Probabilities: Weighing Unverified Expert Reports Alongside Oral Evidence
Having established that the paternity test results possessed some probative value despite not constituting admissible expert evidence, the court turned to consider whether the maintenance court had correctly weighed this evidence together with the oral testimony. The appellant’s appeal included numerous challenges to findings the maintenance court made, or failed to make, regarding the viva voce evidence. At the risk of oversimplification, the appellant contended the oral evidence alone did not establish on the probabilities that he was Z’s father.
The court observed that there was substantial overlap in some of the appellant’s criticisms and that certain grounds did not truly bear on the ultimate issue. The central enquiry in any paternity case necessarily focuses on whether, on the probabilities, the alleged father and mother had sexual intercourse at around the time the child was conceived. There was no dispute that Z was conceived and that the respondent was his mother. While alternative forms of insemination could not automatically be ruled out, the starting point was that she had sexual intercourse with someone at conception. The question was whether that person was the appellant on the probabilities.
The court invoked Mayer v Williams 1981 (3) SA 348 (AD) as a reminder that special caution must be applied when evaluating evidence in paternity cases. However, this did not mean that inconsistencies in the respondent’s version required rejection of her entire account or a finding that her testimony was fabricated. The respondent had testified that Z was born on 23 May 2001 after a forty-two week pregnancy, which was not seriously disputed. This placed conception around early August 2000.
The respondent’s account was that she met the appellant in 1999 at Planet Bar nightclub and commenced a sexual relationship some time after the appellant opened Old Trafford sports bar. She described being “involved” with the appellant, confirming this referred to a sexual relationship. She testified they would have sexual intercourse at an upstairs section at Old Trafford after closing time. The respondent said she broke off the relationship upon discovering the appellant was engaged to marry someone else. After living with the appellant’s sister for some months, she moved to Glenhaven, where Z was conceived when she and the appellant had sexual intercourse there.
The respondent explained she had initially not realised she was pregnant. She had been using birth control during her intimate encounters with the appellant, but on the occasion they had intercourse in Glenhaven she was taking antibiotics, which she understood had rendered her contraception ineffective. She testified she heard nothing from the appellant until about February 2001, when she was between six and seven months pregnant. Assuming conception in early August 2000, the respondent would have been six months pregnant in early February 2001 and seven months in early March. She said they met at Glenhaven and had intercourse again.
The court acknowledged from the transcript that the respondent presented as a relatively poor witness. Her evidence was often unclear and inconsistent, especially regarding the timeline of events. This was no doubt partly because she was testifying to events occurring more than twenty years earlier. Z was now apparently a self-supporting adult, and the 2016 proceedings were instituted at his instance to obtain clarity as to his father’s identity. While brought in the maintenance court, the case was for all practical purposes nothing more than a paternity enquiry.
One inconsistency the appellant emphasised was the respondent’s ambivalence about where Z was conceived—whether at Glenhaven or at Old Trafford. During cross-examination, shortly after accepting she had started frequenting Old Trafford between the end of July and end of August 1999, the respondent was pressed on when exactly she fell pregnant. She initially maintained it was when the appellant came to her in Glenhaven, but when the court asked her to calculate backwards from being six to seven months pregnant in February 2001, she conceded she did not know if conception occurred in Glenhaven or at Old Trafford, stating it was twenty-five years ago and asking to be forgiven but insisting she was not lying.
The court found this evidence was not particularly problematic to the respondent’s case. Her inability to recall precise chronology was unsurprising. Her willingness to concede facts on the premise she had the timeline wrong was actually to her credit. Ultimately, whether Z was conceived at Old Trafford or Glenhaven was neither here nor there. The critical question was whether the appellant was Z’s father. The respondent testified she did not have sexual relations with anyone but the appellant at all material times, specifically stating she had no such relations with any of the appellant’s family members. The appellant was unsurprisingly unable to dispute these assertions when he gave evidence, yet he made no challenge to this proposition when cross-examining the respondent.
The appellant’s version proved considerably helpful in establishing a chronology against which the parties’ versions could be assessed. He testified he opened Old Trafford on 6 March 1999, having previously been a karaoke host at various sports bars. The respondent and a friend started frequenting Old Trafford around the end of July or August 1999, apparently after being invited by “Danny,” one of the appellant’s staff whom the respondent had met at Planet Bar. The respondent had mentioned dancing with Danny at Planet Bar, and the versions accorded from this perspective.
The appellant testified the respondent befriended many people at Old Trafford and became “almost a part of the household furniture.” He said she came alone and would sit staring at him “with dead still eyes.” He confronted her about this, and his barman later remarked on it as well. The appellant explained the respondent had met his then-fiancée, who was between six and a half to seven months pregnant at the time. His child was born in December 1999, suggesting this meeting occurred relatively soon after the respondent started frequenting Old Trafford. The appellant said in about December 1999, the respondent gave his fiancée a book about pregnancy or baby names and asked him to perform at a function at the Delft library where she worked.
The appellant testified about an incident in early January 2000, a few weeks after his child’s birth. He claimed he and his fiancée took their baby to Old Trafford for staff to see, that the respondent was present, and that she said to him he must give her a Purity jar with some sperm in it because the baby was so cute. He said in about March 2000, the respondent stole a photograph of his child kept behind the bar. After investigation, when the respondent initially denied taking the photograph, she eventually returned it a few days later, slipping it from her bag and pushing it towards him. When asked why she denied taking it, she said she saw the baby was so cute. The appellant connected this to her earlier comment about wanting sperm because the baby was so cute.
The appellant testified that following this incident, the respondent was banned from the premises towards the end of May 2000. He explained he closed Old Trafford on 11 July 2000, a few months after banning the respondent. He had given his bartender Clinton an opportunity to run the enterprise for about a month, but by the end of June, Clinton said he was no longer interested. The appellant closed the business after returning from a trip to Namibia, crossing the border on 10 July 2000, which was a Monday when they were normally closed. He got the keys from Clinton and closed the place on 11 July.
The appellant said he did not see the respondent again and had not seen her since she was banned towards the end of May 2000. This was where the versions sharply conflicted. Construed in context of the evidence as a whole, the respondent’s version was that she and the appellant were intimate in Glenhaven in early August 2000, when she considered Z was conceived. The appellant averred he first heard of the respondent’s claim that he was Z’s father in about September 2001, after the respondent contacted his wife and told her that Z, then about four months old, was the appellant’s child.
The court found that despite the apparently poor quality of the respondent’s evidence, once adjusted for chronological errors, much of her testimony fit with the appellant’s version. They agreed the respondent and appellant knew each other by September 1999 and that the respondent spent considerable time at Old Trafford. He confirmed the respondent got to know his fiancée and that he attended a function with her hoping to secure a business opportunity. His evidence about her staring at him, making an inappropriate comment about giving her sperm because he had a cute baby, and stealing his child’s picture all emerged from his own testimony. His evidence also gave some credence to the respondent’s version that she was living in Glenhaven in about August 2000, the time she approximated Z was conceived.
The key difference between the versions was that the appellant disputed having a romantic relationship with the respondent. Specifically, he disputed that on at least several occasions during a period towards the end of 1999, they had sexual intercourse on a mezzanine floor at Old Trafford after closing time, or that they did so at the respondent’s home in Glenhaven in about August 2000 and February 2001.
The court concluded that without more, and bearing in mind the onus and the cautious approach mandated in the Mayer case, the respondent’s evidence alone did not establish the appellant’s paternity of Z on a balance of probabilities. Similarly, without any evidence supporting them, the mere admission of the paternity tests and Dr York’s email did not establish the appellant’s paternity on a balance of probabilities. However, the court considered that the probabilities shifted in the respondent’s favour once these two sources of evidence were considered as a composite whole.
The court found the respondent’s version became the dominant one on the probabilities when considered alongside the following factors. On their face, the court-ordained paternity tests all indicated a material level of genetic similarity between the appellant and the respondent. This fact lent credibility to the respondent’s version that Z was conceived pursuant to a sexual encounter between the appellant and respondent at her home in Glenhaven in about August 2000.
While the first test excluded paternity because there were two or more non-matching loci, and this aligned with the SANAS guideline, that guideline required a very high degree of certainty before confirming paternity. The court was concerned with proof on a balance of probabilities, not scientific proof. The conclusion in the first test thus did not serve to exclude a finding of paternity on the probabilities. All three tests had substantially the same results for testing of loci common to all of them, suggesting reliability in the application of the three tests.
The second and third tests indicated a high probability that the appellant was Z’s father. Although the relevant calculation had not been explained in evidence, DNA tests are relatively well-known scientific tools possessing some prima facie value. The only material evidence the appellant advanced to discredit this prima facie evidence was the SANAS guidelines and an email from Dr York which he now claimed the court ought to have disregarded. The court considered that if regard was had to Dr York’s email, it only served to reinforce the conclusion that, on the probabilities, the appellant was Z’s biological father.
The court accordingly found that even if the maintenance court had erred in assessing the basis on which the paternity tests were admissible and the weight to be attributed to them, it nevertheless arrived at the correct finding: that the appellant’s paternity of Z was established on a balance of probabilities. In reaching this conclusion, the court had considered all grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and found none served to undermine the analysis.
Insofar as the appellant criticised the maintenance court for not safeguarding his interests as an unrepresented litigant, the court noted that if he wished to raise such criticisms, he ought to have done so by way of review proceedings. The court hastened to add that its consideration of the record suggested the proceedings were properly conducted by the maintenance court, which remained focused on inquiring into the core issues it was seized with.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, given the respondent had been represented pro bono until filing her notice to abide and did not participate in proceedings thereafter. The court’s condonation of the late filing of the notice of appeal was granted without opposition.
The broader significance of this judgment lies in its nuanced approach to the interplay between documentary evidence possessing some probative value and oral testimony in civil proceedings. While maintaining fidelity to orthodox evidence principles—particularly that expert evidence should ordinarily be given viva voce and tested through cross-examination—the court recognised that in appropriate circumstances, admitted documents reflecting the results of accepted scientific techniques may buttress other evidence aligned to such results. The court was careful to emphasise this does not create a carte blanche for parties to rely on expert summaries without calling experts, but rather acknowledges that civil proceedings require flexibility when weighing cumulative evidence on the balance of probabilities. The maintenance court’s task was not to achieve scientific certainty to SANAS standards, but rather to determine paternity on the probabilities using all admissible evidence before it—a task the court found was properly discharged despite procedural missteps in the admission of the DNA evidence.
Questions and Answers
What is the general rule regarding the admissibility of documentary evidence in South African law?
Without statutory intervention, documentary evidence will only be admitted where the original document is produced and its authenticity is established. Authenticity requires establishing what the document is and that it has not been altered or tampered with. In straightforward cases, this is achieved by calling the author of the document to testify as to its originality, nature, and that the writing has not been altered.
Does the admission of a document into evidence automatically constitute proof of its contents?
No. The mere admission of a document into evidence does not entail admission of evidence as to its contents. For example, the admission of a letter recording that certain events occurred will not constitute proof of those events. At best, it will establish that the author wrote about them on a particular date. However, admitted documents may have probative value in certain circumstances beyond simply proving their contents.
In what circumstances can an admitted document have probative value despite the absence of evidence proving its contents?
Admitted documents can have probative value where the signing of a document has legal implications in itself, such as the conclusion of a contract or execution of a will. Beyond this, documents can serve to introduce contemporaneous evidence that buttresses other evidence before the court. The weight of such evidence depends on the circumstances, including factors such as whether the document was authored by an independent third party at a time when the matter was uncontentious, or whether it was authored by an opposing party against their own interest.
What is the nature of expert evidence and when is it admissible?
Expert evidence is broadly an exception to the general rule that opinion evidence is inadmissible. Such evidence is permitted where a court requires assistance in areas of expertise it does not possess in order to determine an issue before it. The wide extent of specialised knowledge in modern society means expert evidence is often required, from structural engineers explaining building collapses to doctors determining time of death.
What is the court’s role in relation to expert evidence?
While a court will be guided by expert evidence, it will not be led by it. The ultimate determination of a case remains the function of the court. The court is required to weigh expert evidence in the course of its decision, but does not delegate its decision-making function to the experts that appear before it. In contested cases, this may involve the court preferring the evidence of one expert over another, which conceptually involves taking a preference on matters of opinion rather than matters of fact.
How should disputed expert opinions be adjudicated?
Disputed expert opinions are properly adjudicated by hearing testimony from the experts, with their views being tested by cross-examination. This ensures safeguards against relying on untested evidence and allows the court to assess the reliability and reasoning underlying expert conclusions.
Why are the strict principles regarding documentary admissibility often relaxed in civil cases?
Matters involving large volumes of correspondence that is not really contentious would be unduly drawn out if every document had to be individually proved. In many cases, parties will conclude an agreement as to the status of documents that have been discovered or included in a trial bundle. Typically, the effect of those agreements is to impose a default position that all documents may be admitted, while reserving to the parties a right to challenge those they consider contentious.
What provision does the Maintenance Act make for the admission of statements in maintenance proceedings?
Section 12(3) of the Maintenance Act provides that any person against whom a maintenance order may be made may before or during the enquiry come to an arrangement with the maintenance officer that any statement may be submitted as evidence, notwithstanding the fact that it was not served on him or her, whereupon such statement may on its production at the enquiry be admitted as evidence. However, both parties claiming to rely on a document may be inadequate to constitute the sort of arrangement contemplated by this provision.
Can a party contest the admissibility of documents on appeal when they actively relied upon those documents in the court below?
No. Where a party has referred to documents when making submissions, made no objection when documents were handed up, handed up their own pack containing the same documents, incorporated them into heads of argument, discussed them extensively in evidence, and explicitly stated the documents were on record, it is not open for that party to contest admission on appeal or to claim the matter should have been determined as if the documents were not before the court. This is particularly so where the documents related to processes the court itself had directed, such as court-ordered DNA testing.
What is the distinction between the admissibility of documentary evidence and the weight to be attributed to it?
Whether documents may be admitted into evidence is a separate inquiry from whether everything said in those documents must be accepted by the court. Documents may be admissible and form part of the record, but the weight to be given to their contents—particularly where they contain expert opinions—is a different matter requiring careful analysis. Expert conclusions contained in admitted documents cannot simply be accepted without oral testimony unless the circumstances justify attributing some probative value to them as buttressing other evidence.
Is DNA testing evidence so well-known that courts may take judicial notice of its reliability?
Yes. That DNA testing can reliably be used to determine paternity is a fact so notorious that a court may accept it without evidence. This is underscored by the fact that courts may direct such testing to take place in cases where paternity is disputed. There is no obligation on a party seeking such a direction to lead expert evidence to show that it may assist in the determination of that question.
What special caution must be applied in paternity cases according to the Mayer v Williams case?
The Mayer case reminds that special caution must be applied when evaluating evidence in paternity cases. However, this does not mean that inconsistencies in a party’s version means that version should be rejected or that the entire account is a fabrication. The court must still assess the evidence carefully but should not apply an inappropriately high threshold when doing so.
What is the difference between the standard of proof required by SANAS guidelines and the standard applied by courts in civil cases?
The SANAS guidelines require a very high degree of certainty before paternity will be confirmed—a probability of paternity greater than 99.8% before a report can be issued that the alleged father is not excluded as being the biological father, and exclusion on a mismatch of two or more loci. However, courts are concerned with proof on a balance of probabilities, not scientific proof to the standards required by SANAS. The SANAS guidelines work on the basis that only samples from the mother, child and potential father are considered, whereas courts have additional information in the form of oral testimony.
Can admitted DNA test results have any probative value even when the expert opinions contained within them are not admissible?
Yes. While contested expert evidence contained in DNA test results should typically be given viva voce and tested through cross-examination, in civil cases where a court is presented with expert evidence constituting results of an accepted scientific technique, it may in appropriate circumstances be relied upon to buttress other evidence aligned to such results. The fact that an accepted approach for determining paternity produced a result indicating material commonality of genetic material between parties may serve to augment other evidence, even without accepting the expert evidence embedded in the documents. The extent to which a court may do so depends on the facts of the given case.
How should a court approach the weighing of cumulative evidence in a paternity case?
A court must consider all the evidence as a composite whole. Where oral evidence alone may not establish paternity on a balance of probabilities, and where DNA test results alone (without proper expert testimony) may not establish it either, the probabilities may shift when these two sources of evidence are considered together. The court may find that prima facie evidence of genetic similarity from admitted DNA tests lends credibility to oral testimony about sexual encounters at the relevant time of conception, such that the cumulative effect establishes paternity on the balance of probabilities. This approach recognises that civil cases require flexibility when weighing all admissible evidence, even where some evidence has procedural deficiencies in how it was admitted.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here. For free and useful Family Law tech applications visit Maintenance Calculatorand Accrual Calculator.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: