A High Court judge has called on Parliament to enact a law regulating DNA testing, warning that the growing use of genetic evidence in inheritance and paternity disputes has outpaced Kenya's legal framework.
Justice Reuben Nyakundi, sitting in Eldoret, said DNA technology has become one of the most reliable ways of settling family disputes, yet the country still lacks clear laws on the tests.
He said a dedicated law should spell out how DNA profiling is conducted to ensure the process is fair, constitutional and protects the rights of everyone involved.
"Time has come for a statutory framework to ensure modern DNA profile technology is regulated and employed within the dictates of the Constitution,” the judge said.
Justice Reuben Nyakundi.
Photo credit: Jared Nyataya | Nation Media Group
He said the legal gap has become more apparent as courts increasingly handle cases involving inheritance, child custody, paternity and matrimonial property.
Justice Nyakundi made the remarks on Monday August 3, 2026 while deciding a succession case that has been before the court for more than three decades. The dispute centres on a woman who says she is the biological daughter of a deceased man and should therefore inherit part of his estate.
In the case, Edna Chepkoech Tanui told the court that the late Kipyego Kogo Chepkwony was her biological father and that she had been wrongly excluded from succession proceedings.
She said her mother, Rose Chemgetich Tanui, had informed her that the man was her father, although she later changed her position after marrying another man. Edna also claimed Chepkwony supported her financially through her mother when she was growing up.
Justice Reuben Nyakundi says DNA technology has become one of the most reliable ways of settling family disputes, yet the country still lacks clear laws on the tests.
Photo credit: Pool
She further claimed that after several family meetings, some chaired by the local chief, Chepkwony's widow acknowledged her claim and agreed to give her Sh500,000 and two acres of land, but the promise was never honoured.
Edna said she had suffered hardship, remained unemployed and struggled to meet basic needs despite her father leaving behind a sizeable estate from which she believed she was entitled to benefit.
The claimant also blamed the collapse of her earlier case on her former lawyer, saying the advocate failed to attend court, neglected to file crucial documents and stopped communicating with her because she could not afford legal fees.
She asked the court to reopen the succession case and order DNA testing to establish whether she is Chepkwony's biological daughter, arguing that scientific evidence would finally settle the dispute and determine her right to inherit.
According to the ruling, his family strongly disputed her assertion that she is his biological child. They told the court that Edna is a stranger to the family and has no biological or legal claim to the estate.
They denied that Chepkwony had an extra-marital relationship with her mother and maintained that she was not one of his children. The family argued that the succession proceedings had been properly conducted and there had been no concealment of beneficiaries.
The family also opposed the application for DNA testing, arguing that it would infringe on their constitutional right to privacy and that the claimant had not produced sufficient evidence to justify compelling the acknowledged children to undergo the test.
Faced with the conflicting claims, the judge ordered DNA testing to establish whether the woman is biologically related to the acknowledged children.
The tests are to be carried out within 45 days by either the Government Chemist in Kisumu or the Kenya Medical Research Institute (Kemri) in Eldoret.
Justice Nyakundi directed that samples be taken from Chepkwony's acknowledged children so scientists can determine whether they share the same biological father.
The judge said such scientific evidence has become increasingly important because some family disputes cannot be resolved through witness testimony alone.
According to the judge, the law already recognises expert scientific evidence.
However, he said, there are no detailed procedures setting out how DNA profiling should be conducted in family disputes or what safeguards should be put in place to protect those involved.
