A High Court judge has dismissed a widow’s attempt to overturn the distribution of her late husband’s estate, ruling that she had failed to prove her claims of exclusion and forgery.
In her judgment, Justice Maureen Odero of the High Court at Nyeri ruled that the woman had actively participated in the succession process from its inception.
Justice Odero found no merit in the Summons for Revocation of Grant filed by Ann Nkirote Munge, who sought to nullify the confirmed grant issued on November 20, 2014, concerning the estate of Duncan Munge Gikonyo, who died on August 19, 2013.
The dispute centred on the distribution of several parcels of land, including LR Laikipia/Uaso-Narok/707, which had been allocated entirely to the protestor in the confirmed grant.
Munge argued that she was a second wife of the deceased and had been left out of the succession proceedings.
She denied signing the consent dated July 1, 2014, claiming that the signature on the consent to the confirmation of the grant was forged and that she had never appeared before the advocate who witnessed it.
Munge also denied that the Laikipia land formed part of the estate, insisting it had been given to her mother as dowry. She denied having excluded herself from the distribution.
The administrator of the estate, Peter Manyi Munge, a son of the deceased from his first wife, opposed the summons.
He told the court that the protestor was not a wife but a friend who lived with the deceased and that the family had nevertheless included her as a beneficiary.
He stated that she was aware of the confirmation proceedings and had signed the necessary consents.
Justice Odero rejected the protestor’s claim of exclusion.
"From the record this allegation by the protestor is a blatant lie. Both the respondent and DW2 [witness] confirm that the protestor attended the family meetings and accompanied them to the chief’s office to get the introductory letter."
The court noted that the protestor’s signature appeared on the chief’s letter dated November 13, 2013, and the consent to the making of the grant dated November 6, 2013, documents she did not deny signing.
Addressing the allegation of forgery regarding the consent dated July 1, 2014, the judge observed that the protestor had made no police report and had failed to call the advocate before whom the document was executed as a witness.
"The protestor has made no effort whatsoever to prove the allegation of fraud. No evidence was tabled from a document examiner to confirm whether or not the signature on the consent was that of the protestor."
The court also rejected the claim that the Laikipia land had been given away as dowry, noting that the parcel was still registered in the deceased’s name at the time of his death.
"If the deceased truly intended to relinquish this parcel of land as dowry he would have transferred the same to the protestor's mother," the judge remarked.
"Why would the deceased retain in his own name a parcel of land which he had given out as dowry?"
The judge further found the protestor’s assertion that she and her children were disinherited to be contradictory, as the confirmed grant allocated the entire Laikipia parcel to her.
Finding that the protestor had failed to prove any of the grounds for revocation under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, the judge dismissed the summons.
"Based on the foregoing I find no merit in the summons for revocation of grant dated November 15, 2015. The same is hereby dismissed in its entirety," Justice Odero concluded, ordering each party to bear their own costs.
"This is a very old succession cause in which the deceased died in the year 2013—over a decade ago. It is time to put this matter to rest."
