DNA Test Doesn't Automatically End Maintenance Obligations in Kenya

In Kenya, a DNA test can establish that a person is not a child's biological parent, but it does not automatically settle questions of legal responsibility, maintenance, or compensation. Lawyers Njuguna Muri and Purity Muhindi of Muri Mwaniki Thige & Kageni LLP say the answers depend on whether there was deliberate deception, whether parental responsibility had been assumed, and whether a court has made orders. A negative DNA result does not by itself prove that someone lied or release a person from an existing maintenance obligation.

Kenyan law distinguishes biological paternity from legal parenthood. The Children Act, 2022 defines a parent as the mother, father, or a person conferred with parental rights by law. Legal paternity concerns recognition by law, while biological paternity is the genetic relationship established through DNA testing. According to Ms. Muhindi, "These duties are not necessarily tied to the existence of a biological relationship with the child," referring to parental responsibility, which includes providing for a child's maintenance, education, healthcare, and general welfare.

Under section 34(6) of the Children Act, a man who marries a child's mother assumes parental responsibility for her child even without formal adoption. Section 118 of the Evidence Act presumes that a child born during a valid marriage is the husband's, unless the couple had no access to each other when the child was conceived. A person may ask a court to determine paternity, clarify their legal relationship with the child, and make appropriate orders on maintenance or birth records.

A negative DNA result does not guarantee the same outcome in every case. In PGM v RMB (2021), two laboratories excluded a man, but the High Court in Kisii ordered a full hearing after the mother argued that he had treated the child as his own. In MW v GWM [2025] KEHC 3661 (KLR), the High Court set aside maintenance orders against a man after DNA evidence established that he was not the child's biological father.

A person deliberately misled about a child's paternity may consider a civil claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, also known as deceit. Ms. Muhindi says the claimant would have to prove that the other person knowingly made a false representation about paternity, intended the claimant to rely on it, and that the claimant did rely on it and suffered loss. Mr. Muri says such a claim is legally possible but would break new ground in Kenya.

Compensation requires proof of deception, reliance, and identifiable loss; it does not follow automatically from a DNA result. Ms. Muhindi says a claimant would need evidence such as receipts, school fee statements, medical bills, and bank records to show the financial commitments made in reliance on the representation. In NTA v SVK & 2 Others [2020] eKLR, the High Court awarded a man Sh700,000 after he discovered that a child born during his marriage was not biologically his.

A person ordered by a court to pay child maintenance cannot simply stop paying after receiving a negative DNA result. Ms. Muhindi says they must apply for variation or discharge, relying on the DNA evidence and surrounding circumstances. Payments must continue until the court changes the order. Section 119 of the Children Act allows a court to vary, modify or discharge a maintenance order, or suspend it temporarily.

Key points

• A negative DNA result does not automatically end maintenance obligations in Kenya.
• A person misled about a child's paternity may consider a civil claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
• Compensation requires proof of deception, reliance, and identifiable loss.