Businessman’s Secretary Claims Estate Share, Sparking Family Dispute

A dispute has erupted in Eswatini over the estate of a deceased businessman, with his secretary claiming a share for her minor child. The businessman’s mother, Miriam, has approached the High Court seeking an order to compel the secretary, Susan, to surrender the child for further DNA testing. Miriam claims her late son had no biological children and that a previous DNA test excluded him as the child’s biological father.

According to Miriam, her son owned a plant repair and engineering business and employed Susan as his secretary and receptionist. The two had a relationship, which contributed to the breakdown of her son’s previous marriage. Miriam alleges that her son introduced the child as his own, but she suspected the child was not biologically related to him. A DNA test was conducted, and the results allegedly excluded the late businessman as the child’s biological father.

Despite the DNA test results, Susan presented the child’s birth certificate to the Master’s Office, reflecting the deceased as the child’s biological father. Miriam claims that her son did not have children and argues that Susan was aware of the previous DNA results. The master of the High Court advised that another investigation be conducted through DNA testing involving Miriam to establish the child’s relationship with the deceased.

Susan has opposed the application, raising three preliminary points of law and seeking to dismiss the proceedings with costs. She argues that Miriam lacks the necessary legal standing to challenge the child’s paternity and that the right to dispute paternity is a personal right belonging to the presumed father. Susan also argues that the deceased’s acknowledgement of the child as his own established the child’s legal status.

The dispute has raised questions about the legal status of the child and the role of the deceased as the child’s father. Susan argues that the deceased voluntarily assumed the role of the child’s legal and social father, creating a de facto adoption and an estoppel by conduct. She relies on the Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 and Section 29(1) of the Constitution, which prioritize the child’s best interests.

The case has significant implications for the rights of children and the role of the courts in resolving disputes over paternity and inheritance. The court will need to consider the competing interests of the parties and the best interests of the child. Miriam is seeking an order compelling Susan to surrender the child for paternity testing, while Susan is seeking to have the application dismissed.

The court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for the parties involved and may set a precedent for similar cases in the future. The case highlights the complexities of paternity disputes and the need for clear laws and guidelines to resolve such disputes. The court’s ruling will be closely watched by parties involved and may have significant implications for the rights of children and families in Eswatini.

Key points

• The dispute centers on the claim of a secretary that her minor child is a beneficiary of a deceased businessman’s estate, despite DNA test results suggesting otherwise.