Sibling rift over late Judge’s life policy sparks family legal battle

The corridors of Milimani Law Courts have become the stage for a tense family showdown, where grief, millions of shillings and legal interpretation collide.

At the centre of the dispute is Annette Majanja, sister to the late High Court Judge David Majanja, who has publicly opposed her brother Martin Majanja over the distribution of the judge’s multi-million-shilling Group Life Assurance Policy.

Their father, Gerishom Majanja, watches as his children clash over what was meant to honour his son’s legacy.

In a replying affidavit filed on October 14 last year, Annette described her brother’s attempt to claim the funds as a “willful misjudgment” and a “faulty legal argument”.

She insists that the life assurance proceeds are governed not by Justice Majanja’s general will, but by statutory rules under the Insurance Act.

“I am advised by my advocates that the said funds are nominations under the Insurance Act, not to be misconstrued as choses in action as contended by the Applicant,” Annette states in her sworn deposition.

She argues that while Martin relies on a clause in their late brother’s 2014 will, which bequeaths “all monies in my Bank Account, shares and choses in action” to him, this cannot override the legal requirement that life insurance proceeds must be paid to beneficiaries specifically nominated in the policy documents.

Justice Majanja reportedly left a will covering specific properties but did not complete a beneficiary nomination for his Judiciary-linked life assurance policy.

Annette presented a letter from the Judicial Service Commission dated November 13, 2024, confirming that no beneficiary had been nominated during the judge’s lifetime.

Without a nomination, she says, the policy constitutes “unadministered property” to be distributed under the laws of intestacy, ensuring all eligible heirs share in the proceeds.

Martin contends that the insurance policy qualifies as a “chose in action”—a legal right enforceable in court—and should therefore fall under his exclusive inheritance.

He has petitioned the court to grant him full control of the funds.

Annette’s legal team cited a 2025 ruling in the Kigotho Wangechi case, which affirmed that insurance nominations are separate from a deceased person’s testamentary estate.

She warned that granting Martin’s claim would “illegally disinherit” other rightful beneficiaries, undermining both statutory law and family fairness.

Tensions have also been heightened by prior correspondence with the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary, in which Martin’s lawyers sought to release the funds directly from the commission—a move Annette’s lawyers describe as an attempt to circumvent proper legal processes.