Not long ago, the editors of FBRK covered a high-profile inheritance case in which a controversial molecular genetic test played a key role. The results of this test received opposite interpretations in different courts.
According to our sources, today the disputed situation regarding paternity establishment via a DNA test has escalated into a prolonged property dispute.
To recap, after the father's death, his only daughter inherited the property, but soon a person appeared who claimed to be the deceased's illegitimate son and demanded a share of the inheritance.
The molecular genetic examination showed a 99.9% probability of kinship between the alleged heirs; however, the absence of biomaterials from the deceased prevented experts from reaching definitive conclusions.
The city court did not recognise the alleged son as an heir and dismissed the claim to validate the genetic test results, while the regional court recognised his right to the inheritance, relying on the same DNA test. The daughter's attempt to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court ended in failure — the court refused to review the case.
According to our sources, the subject of the dispute was significant property, including a building with an area of 1,221.2 sq m in the city of Atyrau, cash accounts, pension savings, and a land plot of 0.065 hectares.
By court order, the parties each received two floors of the building, and the common areas were designated as shared-use facilities.
However, the implementation of the court decision caused further disagreements. Although the property was divided mathematically equally, the economic situation turned out to be unbalanced: the son's side received the more profitable ground floor.
At the same time, all expenses for maintaining the building fell on the daughter, including technical and repair work, utility payments, and taxes. The alleged son, as we were told, is not responding to contact, and the burden of all payments falls on the deceased's daughter.
It is worth noting that the average market value of the building is over 379 million tenge. Furthermore, by the city court's decision, the son received over 34 million tenge from the deceased's current and deposit accounts, around 1.8 million tenge from accrued interest, and over 916 thousand tenge from pension savings.
Given these figures, it seems clear why a person who was not present during the father's lifetime is fighting so fiercely for the inheritance.
When you look into it, this whole complicated story of property disputes and human conflicts might never have arisen if the molecular genetic examination had initially been carried out with a full set of necessary biomaterials, including samples from the alleged father.
Instead, we see a person whose kinship did not receive direct genetic confirmation due to the lack of a crucial component of the study, obtaining rights to multi-million tenge property, while his alleged relatives have become entangled in an endless series of court proceedings and everyday conflicts.
But behind this story lies a perhaps far more important question. How can we trust a judicial practice that demonstrates a significant gap between the formal resolution of a dispute and its practical implementation, which, despite highly accurate genetic studies, is unable to provide exhaustive answers for the legal system?