Judiciary declines to comment on late Justice Majanja’s estate dispute

The Judiciary has declined to comment on the ongoing dispute over the estate of the late High Court judge David Majanja.

In a statement issued on Thursday, January 15, Judiciary spokesperson Paul Ndemo cited the sub judice rule, which bars public discussion of matters pending before a court.

“The Judiciary’s attention has been drawn to a story aired on January 14, 2026, regarding the estate of the late Justice David Majanja. Noting that the matter is before court for determination of the distribution of the estate, the sub judice rule applies, which forbids public discussion of matters under judicial consideration,” Ndemo said.

“We therefore do not wish to comment further on the matter.”

The statement follows a media interview in which Justice Majanja’s family publicly appealed for the release of funds held after his death, outlining differing views within the family on how the estate should be distributed.

In the interview, the late judge’s father, Gerishom Majanja, urged the court to fast-track the matter, saying prolonged delays had left the family in distress.

Court documents show that Justice Majanja left a will bequeathing more than Sh22 million held in various bank accounts, as well as shares, to his youngest brother, Martin Aluvisia Majanja.

The will also granted Martin certain responsibilities over the accounts, a matter now before the court.

“When David died, a will surfaced in which it distributed some things, but in particular he loved Martin,” Gerishom said.

“The will also gave him benefits managing the bank accounts, including after his death. I tried to speak to the Judiciary to see if it could be released, but they took me round and round until we had to engage lawyers.”

Gerishom expressed frustration, saying the delays had compounded the family’s pain.

“The Judiciary, which is supposed to take care of us, is instead causing pain to the very people it is mandated to protect by law. We are in pain. They know that I was dependent on David. He used to take care of me. I am speaking from a place of suffering,” he said.

However, court documents show that the application has been contested by another family member. Annette Majanja, in her response, states that she is a beneficiary of the deceased and challenges the interpretation of the will being advanced.

She argues that the bequeathment in the written will cannot be applied to the Group Life Assurance policy associated with Justice Majanja’s employment.

“The bequeathment in the deceased’s written will is extraneous to the dictates of the Group Life Assurance Policy and therefore the applicant is unfounded in construing an expression of the will to be a nomination in a totally distinct scheme,” Annette states in court filings.

She maintains that there was no nominated beneficiary under the policy, and the proceeds should form part of the deceased’s unadministered estate and be distributed according to the law on intestacy.

She has urged the court to dismiss the application.

The funds were ordered withheld pending validation of Justice Majanja’s will and determination of the succession process, in line with established probate procedures.

The court is yet to rule on the validity of the will and the final distribution of the estate.

Justice Majanja served at the High Court and was widely respected for his jurisprudence. He died in 2024.

Despite the public interest generated by the family’s appeal, the Judiciary has maintained that it cannot engage on the substance of the matter while it remains before the court, insisting that due process must take its course.