Court affirms adopted children's inheritance rights in landmark ruling
Titus Mbuya | Wednesday April 29, 2026 06:00
In the matter involving the Lebese family, the court dismissed an application by relatives of the late Goitseone Lebese seeking to overturn an earlier order recognising one Basimane Lebese as her adopted child and lawful heir.
The applicants, who are the deceased’s siblings and relatives, argued that the respondent was neither biologically related to the deceased nor formally adopted under customary law.
They further sought to rescind the earlier judgment on procedural grounds, including alleged lack of service of court papers.
However, Justice Kebonang rejected both the procedural and substantive claims, delivering a judgment that reinforces legal certainty around adoption and inheritance.
Central to the ruling is the court’s clear statement that adopted children stand on equal footing with biological children in matters of succession. The judge held that adoption creates a complete legal parent-child relationship, with reciprocal rights and obligations, including the right to inherit from the adoptive parent.
“An adopted child does not need to be a biological child in order to inherit,” the court found, underscoring that adoption severs prior legal ties and establishes the adoptee as a legitimate child of the adoptive parent.
This pronouncement aligns Botswana law with modern principles of child welfare, placing emphasis on the best interests and legal protection of the child, rather than rigid biological connections.
The court was critical of the applicants’ attempt to disown the respondent after previously acknowledging him as the deceased’s child and heir in official documents, including pension fund declarations.
Evidence before the court showed that the applicants themselves had listed the respondent as the deceased’s child and beneficiary in a Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund questionnaire completed after her death.
Justice Kebonang held that the applicants could not later seek to contradict their own representations for personal gain, invoking the principle that no one may benefit from their own wrongdoing.
The court further ruled that the contents of such formal documents could not be altered by later oral explanations, applying the parol evidence rule, which bars the use of external evidence to contradict clear written terms.
On the procedural issues, the court found that the applicants had, in fact, been properly served with court papers, and even if there had been defects, they had submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings.
Importantly, the judgment also clarified the doctrine of locus standi, holding that litigants must assert their own legal rights and cannot rely on the rights of others. The lead applicant lacked standing to raise complaints on behalf of other parties who were capable of acting for themselves.
This ruling follows closely on Justice Kebonang’s recent landmark judgment restricting the use of DNA testing in paternity and inheritance disputes. Taken together, the two decisions signal a clear judicial trend: Botswana courts are increasingly prioritising legal certainty, the rights of children, and the integrity of family relationships over speculative or opportunistic litigation.
The application was dismissed, cementing the respondent’s status as the lawful heir.
The judgment is likely to have lasting implications, particularly in reinforcing the idea that adoption is not a lesser form of parenthood but a complete and legally protected family bond.