Didas s/o Paul v. Christina d/o Leiya, (PC) Civ. App. 122-A-66, 7/9/68, Platt J.

Didas s/o Paul v. Christina d/o Leiya, (PC) Civ. App. 122-A-66, 7/9/68, Platt J.

The appellant was sued in the Primary court by the respondent for expenses connected with the pregnancy and birth of a child. There was evidence, as found by the Primary court, that the respondent was living as the appellant’s mistress. Nonetheless the Primary Court held that there was not sufficient evidence of affiliation and dismissed the case.

            Held: As far as the law is concerned the provisions of paragraphs 183 to 189 in Chapter 4 of the Law of Persons, Govt. Notice 279 of 1963, are pertinent. “The combined effect of those paragraphs is that where a woman names a man as being the father of her child, he may not dany paternity unless he proves that he had no intercourse with the woman. This rule still holds good even if the woman had more than one lover. But if the man can produce evidence that he never had sexual intercourse with the woman, then the burden falls on the woman of proving her assertion by adducing detailed evidence. Once the man has been found to be responsible for the pregnancy, he is liable to pay for the expenses connected with the pregnancy, and childbirth.” On this case, since it appears that the respondent was appellant’s mistress, he could not deny having sexual intercourse with her. He has been named by the respondent as father and so is held responsible for the pregnancy. Claim for expenses allowed.