AB & SURROGACY ADVISORY GROUP v MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT & CENTER FOR CHILD LAW: South Africa Constitutional Court, 2016

The applicant requests the Constitutional Court to confirm the decision of the Pretoria High Court on this matter. At the level of the High Court, the applicant had challenged the constitutional validity of provisions of section 294 of the Child Act regarding the requirement for genetic links in surrogacy matters, which according to the applicants violates the right to equality, dignity, reproductive health care, autonomy and privacy. The applicants argued that, although it was accepted that most people preferred using their own gamete in order to establish genetic links with a child, it is not fair to establish such as the rule, especially as some persons might be in circumstances that do not allow them to use their own gamete, and this legal provision therefore deprives them of the right to parentage, other than adoption. The High Court found section 294 of the Child Act to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid, and attributed costs to the respondents.  After examining the High Court’s judgment, the Constitutional Court disagreed with the former’s ruling on the constitutional validity of the contested legal provision, and upheld the respondents’ appeal

Aabubakar Karami Masama v. Ruwa Tufara Magama: Sokoto Appeal Court, 2018

Prior to the marriage, the appellant on the payment of dowry went into seclusion with the respondent’s daughter and lived as if married to her. Subsequently after the marriage he disputed the paternity of the child born into the marriage after a period of two months.

Abong Emmanuel Fusi & Tangang Monica Akwano v The People Of Cameroon & Tubah Council: Mezam High Court, 2011

This is an application praying for a court order to draw up a new birth certificate for a minor named Fusi Soliver Che. The Applicants who are the biological parents contend that the said child was born on 25/12/1993 at Mankon Mezam and not 25/12/1997, Tubah Council. That stating in the child’s birth certificate that the child was born on 25/12/1997 was an error done by the Civil Status Registry, and as such needed to be rectified. The Court ruled that, according to section 31(2) of the 1981 Civil Status registration ordinance, the birth certificate should be drawn at the place of birth of the child. As such, the place for registration of the child’s birth should be Mankon – Mezam, and not Tubah Council. It therefore declared that the act by the civil status registry was irregular and the said certificate dated 25/12/1997, null and void.

In the High Court of Mezam division; Holden at Bamenda.  Suit No. HCB/152M/2011: Between Abong Emmanuel Fusi & Tangang Monica (Petitioners) Akwano v The People Of Cameroon & Tubah Council (Respondents)

Acha Claudette Akum v Franklin Teneng Awa: Mezam High Court, 2013

This an interlocutory application by way of a motion on notice praying the court for an order of custody of the child, named Narvan Anyam Awa, born on 25/05/2009, as well as for the respondent to hand over the birth certificate of the said  Child. The applicant equally requested the court to order the respondent to contribute 50.000 Frs. monthly for the Child’s upkeep and education but the respondent that he won’t let go of the birth certificate, neither will he take care of the child unless the child goes and stays with his brother one Pastor Kennedy. The Parties got married traditionally in 2005 and not a civil marriage. Thereafter they bore the child whom at the time of the suit, was 4 years. Since her birth, the child has been living with the mother (applicant). The mother (Applicant) and father (Respondent) both want an order of custody of the child. Court rules of favour of the applicant, granting her custody, and ordering the respondent to pay monthly allowance of 50,000 FCFA.

In the High Court of Mezam division; Holden at Bamenda.  Suit No. HCMB/358M/13: Between Acha Claudette Akum (Applicant) v Franklin Teneng Awa (Respondent)

Advence Fuh (Applicant) v Miranda Ngiekem Azise: Mezam High Court, 2014

This involves a petition for divorce filed and praying the court to dissolve a monogamous marriage celebrated on 04/08/09 at the Bamenda II Civil Status Registration Centre. The petitioner contends that, after the marriage, the respondent (wife) has been behaving abnormally, such as refusing him to have his conjugal rights with her, and, consequently, they have been living apart since 20/05/2012. That the said respondent had been living with her boyfriend and never cared about him; neither does she know the where-about of the child.

However, the respondent argued in the contrary and stated that it was the applicant that was rude to her and that her refusal to have sexual intercourse with him was due to a doctor’s recommendation, which the applicant was very much aware of. The court held that the marriage shall be dissolved accordingly since both parties have already broken it down. Considering the tender age of the child, the court placed the child under the custody of the mother Miranda Ngiekem Azise. The petitioner was however accorded visiting rights to the child and to make a monthly allocation of 30.000 FCFA for the child’s upkeep, as well as catering for the child’s educational and healthcare needs.

In the High Court of Mezam Division; Holden at Bamenda.  Suit No. HCMB/06MC/2013: Between  Advence Fuh (Applicant) v Miranda Ngiekem Azise (Respondent)

AB & SURROGACY ADVISORY GROUP vs Minister of Social Development & Center for Child Law: Constitutional Court, 2016

The applicant requests the Constitutional Court to confirm the decision of the Pretoria High Court on this matter. At the level of the High Court, the applicant had challenged the constitutional validity of provisions of section 294 of the Child Act regarding the requirement for genetic links in surrogacy matters, which according to the applicants violates the right to equality, dignity, reproductive health care, autonomy and privacy. The applicants argued that, although it was accepted that most people preferred using their own gamete in order to establish genetic links with a child, it is not fair to establish such as the rule, especially as some persons might be in circumstances that do not allow them to use their own gamete, and this legal provision therefore deprives them of the right to parentage, other than adoption. The High Court found section 294 of the Child Act to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid, and attributed costs to the respondents.  After examining the High Court’s judgment, the Constitutional Court disagreed with the former’s ruling on the constitutional validity of the contested legal provision, and upheld the respondents’ appeal.]

Abote Batsietsi Monnana, Appellant V. The State: Botswana Court of Appeal, 2013

The appellant was charged, at the High Court, for kidnapping a 4-year-old child who was later murdered. The judge struck out the kidnapping charge but convicted the appellant on the murder charge.

The appellant avers that the prosecution was unable to proof the case beyond reasonable doubt as there was no proper evidence that he had kidnapped the child with the intention to murder. Furthermore, due to the absence of the child, a charge of murder cannot be made as there remains a possibility that the child is still alive.

It was thus ordered that the murder charge and consequent death sentence of the appellant be set aside and that he be acquitted on the charge of murder. The appellant is convicted on a charge of kidnapping and sentenced to six years of imprisonment.

In the Court of Appeal for the Republic of Botswana at Gaborone: Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. CLCGB-090-12: High Court Criminal Trial No. CTHFT-000066-09: In the matter between Abote Batsietsi Monnana, Appellant and The State, Respondent