REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
SUCCESSION CAUSE CASE NO. E024 OF 2021
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LESHAN NICK OLE LETOLUO (DECEASED)
SALOME NAANYU LESHAN LETOLUO, JOY NAMUNYAK LESHAN, and
LESHAN KUNTAI, suing as the Administrators of
The late Nick Ole Letoluo………. ADMINISTRATORS
VERSUS
PURITY SOMOINE MEITAMEI...............................................................OBJECTOR
JUDGMENT
18/07/2025
INTRODUCTION
1. The dispute at issue stems from a petition for letters of administration intestate filed on November 29, 2021, by Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, Joy Namunyak Leshan, and Leshan Kuntai (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrators"). The Administrators also filed an application dated December 15, 2021, for a Special Limited Grant to access KShs. Five million held in a client account at the law firm of Gikera & Vadgama Advocates.
2. The Protestor, Purity Somoine Meitamei, contends that she was the second wife of the deceased, the late Lt. Gen. Leshan Nick Ole Letoluo, at the time of his death. Her grievance was that she was neither consulted nor involved in the succession proceedings, despite her alleged status and relationship with the deceased.
3. On that basis, the Protestor filed an application dated April 20, 2022, seeking revocation of the Special Limited Grant on the grounds of material non-disclosure and misrepresentation. The Administrators opposed the application through a replying affidavit dated June 22, 2022, denying the allegations of concealment. The parties subsequently filed written submissions, and the matter was listed for ruling on October 27, 2022.
4. On the date of the ruling, Hon. Justice Gikonyo allowed the Special Limited Grant to remain in effect. For the sake of good order, he directed that the Administrators file a Summons for Confirmation of Grant, taking into account the issues raised by the Protestor. The Court further guided that should the Protestor be dissatisfied with the proposed mode of distribution, she was at liberty to file a formal protest.
5. Under the Court's directions, the Administrators filed the Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated December 28, 2022. In their application, they acknowledged the presence of the Protestor in the deceased's life but downplayed her role, referring to her merely as an acquaintance. They proposed to allocate her a sum of KShs. 750,000 out of the deceased's substantial Estate—an offer the Protestor considered unjust and unacceptable.
6. In response, the Protester filed an Affidavit of Protest dated February 2, 2023. She challenged her exclusion from the proposed distribution and asserted her right to recognition as a wife. She also sought recognition of her two daughters, claiming the deceased had assumed parental responsibility for them during his lifetime.
7. In addition to recognition, the Protestor sought a specific allocation of the house situated on LRLR No. CIS-MARA/ILMASHIARANI-MORIJO/290 (subdivided and assigned parcel No. 7644), arguing that the deceased had established the house as their matrimonial home during their cohabitation.
8. In reply, Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo filed a further affidavit denying that the Protestor was ever married to the deceased. She, however, conceded that the Protestor had resided with the deceased in one of the houses for a time.
9. The Court directed the parties to file their respective submissions. The matter was initially listed for judgment on October 11, 2023, before Hon. Justice Gikonyo. However, on that date, the Court issued a ruling directing that, in the interest of justice, the matter proceed by way of viva voce evidence.
10. Thereafter, the Administrators filed an application dated January 25, 2024, seeking to cite the Protestor for intermeddling with the Estate. They alleged that she had transferred motor vehicle registration number KAU 928J into her name without a grant of representation. They sought an order for her imprisonment for one year without the option of a fine.
11. In response, the Protestor filed a replying affidavit dated March 7, 2024, explaining the circumstances under which the vehicle was transferred and expressing her willingness to reinstate the logbook in the name of the deceased.
12. When the parties appeared before the Court on March 11, 2024, Hon. Justice Gikonyo directed that the issue of intermeddling would be addressed after the determination of the parties' respective rights to the Estate. The Court further advised the Protestor to acquaint herself with the law governing succession and cautioned all parties from dealing with the free property of the Estate. The Court also urged the Protestor to rectify any wrongful acts of intermeddling, if established, as the parties awaited the outcome of the primary dispute.
13. Before this Court for determination are the summons for Confirmation of Grant dated December 28, 2022, the Application for Intermeddling dated January 25, 2024, and the Affidavit of Protest dated February 2, 2023.
14. Background
15. The late Lt. Gen. Leshan Nick Ole Letoluo passed away on March 9, 2021.
16. Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo (the widow) was married to the late Nick Leshan Ole Letoluo (the deceased) on December 13, 1969, under Maasai customary law. Their union was later solemnized on January 23, 1977, at the Kenya Air Force base in Eastleigh, Nairobi, under the provisions of the African Christian Marriage and Divorce Act, Cap 151.
17. The deceased and his wife were blessed with four children: Sheila Pereruan Leshan Griffin, Joy Namunyak Leshan Wanje, Kuntai Leshan, and Purko Leshan. Throughout their marriage, the family resided in various locations, including Narok and Nairobi. The deceased served the country with distinction in the Kenya Air Force, rising to the rank of Lieutenant General before retiring from active service in 2011.
18. He was survived by his wife, Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, and their four children: Sheila Pereruan Leshan Griffin, Joy Namunyak Leshan, Kuntai Leshan, and Purko Leshan.
19. Following the demise of the deceased, his widow, Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, together with their daughter, Joy Namunyak Leshan, and son, Kuntai Leshan, jointly applied for a Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate in respect of his Estate. The remaining two children, Sheila Pereruan, Leshan Griffin, and Purko Leshan, duly consented to the Petition.
20. In addition, the Administrators applied for and were granted a Special Limited Grant to enable them to administer the Estate. The said Grant was issued on December 20, 2021.
21. The Petition for the Full Grant of Letters of Administration was subsequently gazetted on February 25, 2022. While awaiting the expiry of the statutory six-month period before applying for confirmation of the Grant, Purity Somoine Meitamei (the Protester) filed an application seeking revocation of the Special Limited Grant. The basis of her Protest was that she and her two daughters had not been recognized as dependents of the deceased.
22. The Administrators opposed the Protester's application, and by a ruling delivered on October 27, 2022, the Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that such an application could only be brought adequately after the filing of an application for confirmation of the Grant.
23. As the statutory six-month period since the gazettment of the Petition had already lapsed, the Court proceeded to issue a Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate to the Administrators (Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, Joy Namunyak Leshan, and Leshan Kuntai) on November 3, 2022. It directed them to apply for confirmation of the Grant.
24. Under the Court's directive, the Administrators applied for confirmation of the Grant dated December 28, 2022, accompanied by an Affidavit and Schedule of Distribution outlining the proposed mode of distribution of the Estate among the beneficiaries. In that schedule, and purely out of goodwill, the Administrators allocated the sum of Kshs. 750,000.00 to the Protester, in recognition of the help that the deceased extended to her. However, it is essential to note that, under the law, she is not entitled to a share of the deceased's Estate.
25. Dissatisfied with the proposed allocation, the Protester filed an Affidavit of Protest dated February 2, 2023, seeking revocation of the Grant issued on November 3, 2022. Her claim was premised on the assertion that she was the deceased's second wife and had not been adequately provided for, and that the deceased's children, whom she claimed the deceased had recognised, were improperly excluded from the proposed distribution.
26. The Administrators opposed the Protest through a Reply to Affidavit of Protest sworn by Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo on March 22, 2023. In support of the response, an additional affidavit was sworn on March 28, 2023, by Josephat Tongei Letoluo, a brother of the deceased.
27. On March 29, 2023, the application for confirmation of the Grant and the Protest were placed before the Court for directions. On that date, the Court directed that both the application and the Protest be canvassed through written submissions.
28. Both parties complied with the Court's directions by filing their respective submissions, and the matter was thereafter reserved for judgment, scheduled for delivery on October 11, 2023. However, on the scheduled date, the Court did not deliver judgment. Instead, the Court observed that, in light of the Protester's contention that she was the wife of the deceased, it was necessary to hear the parties orally before rendering a final decision.
29. In the meantime, the Administrators filed an application dated January 25, 2024, seeking orders that the Protester be found guilty of interfering with the Estate of the deceased, specifically Motor Vehicle Registration Number KAU 928J, and be imprisoned for one year without the option of a fine. The motor vehicle will be reinstated in the name of the deceased.
30. Consequently, the hearing proceeded on April 8, 2024, January 22, 2025, and February 25, 2025.
31. Directions of the Court.
32. This Court considered the Petition for a special limited Grant dated December 15, 2021, and issued the following orders:
33. The Petition was certified as urgent.
34. A special limited grant was issued to Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, Joy Namunyak Leshan, and Leshan Kuntai, strictly on the following terms:
35. The Grant was limited to the collection and preservation of Kshs. 5,000,000 held in a client's account by the firm Gikera & Vadgama Advocates.
36. The said firm was directed to pay the amount into an estate account designated in the names of the three petitioners within 21 days of the date of the order.
37. For a sum not exceeding Kshs. 200,000 was to be allocated toward the widow's immediate needs, and no other funds were to be withdrawn from the estate account without prior court approval.
38. The petitioners were required to file in the Court an estimate of the widow's personal and household expenses, as well as operational costs for the farm, within 21 days for the Court's consideration and further orders.
39. The Grant was to be drawn up in strict accordance with the terms above.
40. The Grant did not confer any power of distribution of the Estate.
41. The petitioners were required to file a substantive petition for the Grant of letters of administration within 30 days.
42. On May 26, 2022, this Court certified the application dated April 20, 2022, as urgent.
43. The Court considered the summons for revocation of the limited Grant dated April 20, 2022, and, in its ruling delivered on October 27, 2022, found no basis for revoking the limited Grant. The applicant was directed to file her application in the leading succession cause.
44. On November 3, 2022, the Court issued the following directions:
45. A temporary grant of letters of administration was issued to the petitioners.
46. The petitioners were to file and serve summons for confirmation of the Grant within 30 days.
47. Any person wishing to oppose confirmation was to file protests within 21 days of service.
48. iv. In the meantime, the petitioners were directed to fulfil all obligations under the earlier limited Grant.
49. On March 29, 2023, the Court directed that the Protest to the confirmation of Grant be canvassed by way of written submissions and that parties should also address the issue of distribution.
50. In its ruling delivered on October 11, 2023, the Court reviewed the above order and directed that the Protest be heard by way of oral evidence.
51. On February 13, 2024, the Court certified as urgent the application dated January 25, 2024.
52. On April 8, 2024, the Court directed that the evidence of Salome Leshan be taken de bene esse. It stated that other jurisdictional issues would be addressed in the Court's determination of the estate property.
53. On May 6, 2024, the Court certified as urgent the application dated May 6, 2024.
54. On May 15, 2024, the Court issued interim directions as follows:
55. Ms. Opondo was directed to liaise with counsel in the ELC matter (Environmental and Land Court) to secure the Estate's interest. The administrators were to cooperate to avoid any prejudice to the Estate.
56. The firm of Gikera & Vadgama Advocates was instructed to file and serve a detailed response to Mr. Kimathi's application, including accurate accounts of the proceeds from the sale of the Runda property.
57. On July 10, 2024, the Court reviewed its earlier orders of April 8, 2024, and held as follows:
58. The share of Salome Leshan in the proceeds from the sale of the Runda property did not form part of the Estate.
59. Her share was to be released forthwith, subject to lawful deductions and costs.
60. On November 8, 2024, by the parties' consent, the Court ordered that KCB Bank, Narok Branch, allow the administrators to withdraw Kshs 650,000 from Account No. 1292982896 to pay legal fees to Muigai Kemei Advocates.
61. On November 27, 2024, the Court adopted as an order the consent letter dated November 19, 2024.
62. On November 14, 2024, the Court certified as urgent the application dated October 22, 2024.
63. Evidence
A. Administrators' Case
64. The Administrators called two witnesses in support of their case: Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo (AW-1), the widow and one of the administrators of the Estate; and Josephat Tongei Letoluo (AW-2), a brother of the deceased.
65. Evidence of AW-1: Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo (Taken de bene esse)
66. AW-1 testified that she was lawfully married to the deceased, Leshan Nick Ole Letoluo, under Maasai customary law on December 13, 1969. The marriage was later formalized through a certificate of marriage dated January 23, 1977, which was necessary for the deceased's employment.
67. She stated that their matrimonial home is located at Nangiri Farm, situated on Title No. LRLR. Cis Mara/Ilmashariani/Morijo/290. She has lived on the said property since the late 1970s. The land, initially part of a group ranch, was distributed to members and is now registered in the name of the deceased. The couple also resided at Eastleigh Air Force Barracks during his military service.
68. Together, they had four children, namely:
• Shila Perughan
• Joy Namunyak
• Kuntai Leshan
• Purko Leshan
69. She emphasized that the deceased had no other children.
70. AW-1 described a cordial relationship with the deceased and his family, noting he had thirteen siblings.
i. She listed additional properties acquired during their marriage, including:
ii. LRLR No. 7785/814 (Original No. 7785/10/553) in Runda, registered jointly in their names and later sold to Abdulahi Mohammed Ahmed for Kshs. 65,000,000.
iii. A property in Elementaita was later sold.
iv. A property in Kongoni, Naivasha, was also sold, and the proceeds were used to develop their home in Narok.
v. Two additional parcels (2 acres and 3 acres) near their home, which were not yet transferred to the deceased at the time of his death.
vi. LRLR No. Cis Mara/Ilmashariani/Morijo/1189 at Nanapisho, measuring approximately 19–20 acres, also untransferred.
vii. LRLR No. Cis Mara/Ilmashariani/Morijo/1190, measuring 5 acres, allegedly purchased from one Sankale Oturi.
71. She testified that LRLR No. 290 had been extensively developed with poultry, orchards, livestock (including beef and dairy cattle, goats, sheep, and fish), and a modern homestead. The property was also the site of a house built for the eldest son. However, she stated that he does not reside there due to the presence of one Purity Somoine Meitamei, who moved into the house in 2017 when Salome had traveled to the UK for her granddaughter's wedding.
72. She denied knowledge of any customary marriage between the deceased and Purity and stated that despite confronting the deceased, she was never given any explanation. She identified Purity as a fellow church member, previously married to one Henry Kuya, with whom she had four children. She noted that Purity's family and hers belonged to the same Maasai clan, and thus could not lawfully marry, as such a union was deemed taboo. She stated that Purity's divorce was finalized on August 16, 2027, and she had no knowledge of the deceased supporting Purity's children.
73. She disputed Purity's allegations that LRLR No. 290 had been subdivided, and a portion allocated to her.
74. She testified that during the deceased's illness, Purity would allegedly sneak in to visit him. She was informed that Purity attended the deceased's funeral but was not part of the official program.
75. She proposed the following mode of distribution:
76. She stated that she wishes the property to be shared as follows.
i. 30 acres of LRLR No. 290 to the sons.
ii. The balance of LRLR No. 290 to herself and her daughters.
iii. Her sons pursue titles to the properties yet to be transferred.
iv. The house occupied by Purity is to be allocated to the firstborn son.
v. Proceeds of the Runda property to be divided equally, half to herself and the other half to be shared among the children.
vi. She expressed a willingness to give something to Purity "just as was given to Hagar in the Bible."
77. On cross-examination, she admitted that the deceased would occasionally go to the house where Purity lived with the firstborn son but could not confirm how long Purity had resided there, given the distance.
78. She stated that the deceased did not distribute his property during his lifetime.
79. On re-examination, she clarified that Purity's house was approximately 1½ km from her residence. It was built around 2014–2015, and she discovered Purity living there in 2016–2017. Initially, they were on good terms, and Purity used to visit with her children.
80. Evidence of AW-2: Josephat Tongei Letoluo
81. AW-2 adopted his Affidavit, sworn on March 28, 2023, as his evidence-in-chief. He stated that he is a biological brother to the deceased, born of the same mother, and that he helped raise him. He confirmed that he had known Salome since her marriage to the deceased, as per Maasai customary law, in 1969.
82. He acknowledged knowing Purity Somoine Meitamei and the children she had with her previous husband. He testified that Purity was present at the burial of the deceased but emphasized that the deceased had never allocated any property to her. He denied knowledge of any customary marriage between Purity and the deceased, stating that she was previously married in church to one Henry in 2001. He noted that while Joel Lemishen (another brother) had made allegations, he was problematic and not a reliable source.
83. During cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased had moved from the first home and begun residing in another house, implying a possible change in domestic arrangements.
84. On re-examination, he stated that he never witnessed any marriage negotiations or meetings between the deceased and Purity's family. He reiterated that Purity moved into the deceased's house with children from her prior marriage, which he described as a curse since they belong to the same clan.
85. . Protester's Case
86. The Protester, Purity Somoine Meitamei, called four witnesses in support of her claim to be a surviving spouse of the deceased and thus a rightful beneficiary of his Estate. The witnesses were:
87. Herself – PW1,Her father – PW4, Bensale Meitamei,Chief Ntete Ole Letelou – PW3 Reverend Lemishen Joel Ole Letoluo – PW2
88. Evidence of PW1 – Purity Somoine Meitamei
89. PW1 adopted her Affidavit, sworn on February 2, 2023, as her evidence-in-chief. She testified that she was married to the deceased in 2015 under Maasai customary law, and they lived together as husband and wife. She stated that they built a house together on the deceased's land and cohabited until his death.
90. She alleged that the deceased had a strained relationship with his first wife, Salome, and that he took her two sons as his own, paid their school fees, and provided for the family. She claimed to have divorced her previous husband, Henry Kakuyia, in 2016, and a decree absolute was issued in 2017. During the deceased's illness, she cared for him in the hospital.
91. She claimed that the deceased subdivided his land into four portions—for Salome, herself, a borehole, and a factory—and left her with a tractor, motor vehicle, and livestock. She further stated that she was excluded from the deceased's burial, which was conducted "secretly" by members of the first house.
92. On cross-examination, she confirmed that she was 47 years old while the deceased was 73 at the time of death. She acknowledged that PW2, Reverend Lemishen, was her Sunday school teacher. Although she claimed to have produced school fee receipts as evidence of the deceased's support for her sons, she admitted that most support had been through M-Pesa, yet no records were made.
93. She admitted that the motor vehicle allegedly left to her was transferred to her name after confirmation of the Grant. She maintained she was married under customary law and referred to a family photo with the deceased and her four children as proof of cohabitation.
94. On re-examination, she reiterated that her divorce was finalized in 2017, and that the deceased took responsibility for her sons while she raised the daughters.
95. Evidence of PW2 – Reverend Lemishen Joel Ole Letoluo
96. PW2 adopted his Affidavit sworn on February 2, 2023. He stated that he was the deceased's younger brother. He alleged that the deceased had a problematic relationship with Salome and that she did not accompany him to the hospital during a heart attack. He claimed that family elders decided the deceased should take a second wife, leading to his marriage with Purity.
97. On cross-examination, he maintained that Purity became the deceased's wife in 2016. He stated that dowry was not paid, as none is traditionally required where the woman was previously married. He supported the assertion that the deceased took care of Purity's children.
98. Evidence of PW3 – Chief Ntete Ole Letelou (Retired Senior Chief)
99. PW3 relied on his Affidavit sworn on February 2, 2023. He described himself as a cousin of the deceased and supported the Protester's claim of marriage, noting that the deceased built her a house where she currently lives with her children.
100. On cross-examination, he stated that the deceased often complained about marital issues with Salome and had asked for Purity's hand in marriage. He claimed to be one of the elders sent to negotiate the marriage, and that the dowry was paid. However, no documentation or details of the dowry ceremony were provided.
101. Evidence of PW4 – Bensale Meitamei (Father of the Protester)
102. PW4 adopted his Affidavit as part of his evidence. He testified that the deceased personally approached him seeking Purity's hand in marriage. A delegation of elders was allegedly sent to his home, and dowry was paid in instalments up to 2021.
103. During cross-examination, Bensale revealed that he and the deceased belonged to the same clan and attended school together. He acknowledged that Salome was also his age-mate and confirmed her lawful marriage to the deceased, though he could not remember the date.
104. Crucially, he admitted that under Maasai customary norms, members of the same clan do not intermarry, and thus, Purity would traditionally be regarded as a "daughter" to the deceased. This testimony aligned with that of AW-2 (Tongei) and PW3, raising significant questions about the validity of the alleged marriage.
105. He also conceded that Purity had previously been married to Henry Kakuyia, a union solemnized in church. While initially claiming no dowry had been paid, he later admitted under further questioning that Kakuyia had fathered the children.
106. When pressed on details of the dowry negotiations, Bensale claimed that minutes were taken by the Protester's brother, but was unable to produce any records. His account contradicted earlier statements by Reverend Lemishen (who said no minutes existed) and Chief Ntete (who claimed to have written them).
107. He claimed that part of the dowry was paid via M-Pesa but failed to produce any transaction records to support this claim. He was also unable to identify any specific attendees at the alleged dowry negotiation meetings.
108. On further questioning, Bensale acknowledged that, under customary law, a woman cannot be married to two men simultaneously. When shown a decree absolute, he conceded that Purity was still legally married to Kakuyia as of 2016. His oral testimony materially contradicted his Affidavit, casting doubt on the credibility of both his evidence and that of the Protester.
109. Directions of the Court.
110. Under the directions of the Court, both the Administrators and the Objector filed written submissions in support of their respective positions.
111. The Administrators' Submissions
112. The Administrators submitted that the Protestor had failed to prove the existence of a valid customary marriage between herself and the deceased. They argued that both the deceased and the Protestor lacked the legal capacity to contract a customary marriage during the subsistence of their respective civil marriages. Consequently, the Protestor cannot qualify as a second wife or widow of the deceased. In support of this position, the Administrators relied on several legal authorities including Black's Law Dictionary, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 17, Sections 107(1), 107(2), 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80), and Section 43 of the Marriage Act No. 4 of 2016. They also cited numerous judicial precedents including: In Re Estate of Daniel Olala Nyawawa (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, Elizabeth Wamala vs Jolly Kasend & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2014, Ndele Ole Kimiti vs Montesia Ole Kores, Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1973, In Re Estate of Fredrick Clavence Kittany [2002] eKLR, Sakina Sote Kaittany & Another v Mary Wamaitha [1995] eKLR, Milena Bora v Liana Tamburelli [2016] eKLR, In Re Estate of Giovanni Gremmo (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, Machani v Vernoor [1985] eKLR, MWK v AMW [2017] eKLR, In Re Estate of Anyika David Lengou (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, Hortensia Wanjiku Yawe v The Public Trustee, Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1976, andIn Re Estate of Ruiru Muchohi Gikonyo [2022] eKLR.
113. The Administrators further submitted that all properties comprising the deceased's Estate were acquired through the joint efforts of the deceased and his surviving widow, Salome Naanyu Leshan. The Protestor, not being recognized as a wife or a dependent, is therefore not entitled to a share of the Estate.
114. The Administrators contended that the Protestor's children are neither biological children of the deceased nor his dependents. As such, they have no claim to his Estate. The Administrators relied on Sections 3(2) and 29 of the Law of Succession Act, and the following authorities Estate of the Late M'Thigai Muchangi (Deceased) [2020] eKLR, In Re Estate of Jackson Nicholas Kyengo Mulwa (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, E.M.M v I.G.M & Another, Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2012, In Re Estate of Michael Ngigi Kamami (Deceased) [2024] eKLR, Beatrice Ciamutua Rugamba v Fredrick Nkari Mutegi & 5 Others [2016] eKLR, In Re Estate of ECC (Deceased) [2025] eKLR, and Sarah Kanini Thigunku v Elizaphan Njuki Thigunku [2016] eKLR.
115. The Administrators submitted that, since the Protestor and her daughters are not dependents of the deceased, it was not necessary to seek their consent during the filing of the Petition for letters of administration or the summons for confirmation of Grant. They relied on Section 76(a)-(e) of the Law of Succession Act, Re Estate of Jacob Njiru Mbarire (Deceased) [2022] eKLR, and Matheka & Another v Matheka [2005] 2 KLR 455.
116. Finally, the Administrators submitted that the Protestor's actions amounted to unlawful intermeddling with the Estate. In particular, her Act of taking possession of, transferring, and utilizing the deceased's motor vehicle without legal authority or a grant of representation is in contravention of Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. In support of this position, they relied on the following authorities: In the Matter of the Estate of Veronica Njoki Wakagoto (Deceased) [2013] KEHC 1930 (KLR), In Re Estate of Lawrence Nginyo Kariuki (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, Benson Mutuma Muriungi v C.E.O. Kenya Police Sacco & Another, Re Estate of Kimutai Tiony (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, andGladys Nkirote M'Itunga v Julius Majau M'Ituga [2016] eKLR.
117. Protestor's submissions.
118. The Protestor submitted that she was lawfully married to the deceased under Maa customary law and therefore qualified as a wife within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Law of Succession Act. She averred that following the irretrievable breakdown of her previous marriage to one Henry Kukuyia in 2014, she and her former husband began living separately, each establishing their own homes. Mr. Kukuyia thereafter moved in with anoth
[...truncated]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
SUCCESSION CAUSE CASE NO. E024 OF 2021
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LESHAN NICK OLE LETOLUO (DECEASED)
SALOME NAANYU LESHAN LETOLUO, JOY NAMUNYAK LESHAN, and
LESHAN KUNTAI, suing as the Administrators of
The late Nick Ole Letoluo………. ADMINISTRATORS
VERSUS
PURITY SOMOINE MEITAMEI...............................................................OBJECTOR
JUDGMENT
18/07/2025
INTRODUCTION
1. The dispute at issue stems from a petition for letters of administration intestate filed on November 29, 2021, by Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, Joy Namunyak Leshan, and Leshan Kuntai (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrators"). The Administrators also filed an application dated December 15, 2021, for a Special Limited Grant to access KShs. Five million held in a client account at the law firm of Gikera & Vadgama Advocates.
2. The Protestor, Purity Somoine Meitamei, contends that she was the second wife of the deceased, the late Lt. Gen. Leshan Nick Ole Letoluo, at the time of his death. Her grievance was that she was neither consulted nor involved in the succession proceedings, despite her alleged status and relationship with the deceased.
3. On that basis, the Protestor filed an application dated April 20, 2022, seeking revocation of the Special Limited Grant on the grounds of material non-disclosure and misrepresentation. The Administrators opposed the application through a replying affidavit dated June 22, 2022, denying the allegations of concealment. The parties subsequently filed written submissions, and the matter was listed for ruling on October 27, 2022.
4. On the date of the ruling, Hon. Justice Gikonyo allowed the Special Limited Grant to remain in effect. For the sake of good order, he directed that the Administrators file a Summons for Confirmation of Grant, taking into account the issues raised by the Protestor. The Court further guided that should the Protestor be dissatisfied with the proposed mode of distribution, she was at liberty to file a formal protest.
5. Under the Court's directions, the Administrators filed the Summons for Confirmation of Grant dated December 28, 2022. In their application, they acknowledged the presence of the Protestor in the deceased's life but downplayed her role, referring to her merely as an acquaintance. They proposed to allocate her a sum of KShs. 750,000 out of the deceased's substantial Estate—an offer the Protestor considered unjust and unacceptable.
6. In response, the Protester filed an Affidavit of Protest dated February 2, 2023. She challenged her exclusion from the proposed distribution and asserted her right to recognition as a wife. She also sought recognition of her two daughters, claiming the deceased had assumed parental responsibility for them during his lifetime.
7. In addition to recognition, the Protestor sought a specific allocation of the house situated on LRLR No. CIS-MARA/ILMASHIARANI-MORIJO/290 (subdivided and assigned parcel No. 7644), arguing that the deceased had established the house as their matrimonial home during their cohabitation.
8. In reply, Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo filed a further affidavit denying that the Protestor was ever married to the deceased. She, however, conceded that the Protestor had resided with the deceased in one of the houses for a time.
9. The Court directed the parties to file their respective submissions. The matter was initially listed for judgment on October 11, 2023, before Hon. Justice Gikonyo. However, on that date, the Court issued a ruling directing that, in the interest of justice, the matter proceed by way of viva voce evidence.
10. Thereafter, the Administrators filed an application dated January 25, 2024, seeking to cite the Protestor for intermeddling with the Estate. They alleged that she had transferred motor vehicle registration number KAU 928J into her name without a grant of representation. They sought an order for her imprisonment for one year without the option of a fine.
11. In response, the Protestor filed a replying affidavit dated March 7, 2024, explaining the circumstances under which the vehicle was transferred and expressing her willingness to reinstate the logbook in the name of the deceased.
12. When the parties appeared before the Court on March 11, 2024, Hon. Justice Gikonyo directed that the issue of intermeddling would be addressed after the determination of the parties' respective rights to the Estate. The Court further advised the Protestor to acquaint herself with the law governing succession and cautioned all parties from dealing with the free property of the Estate. The Court also urged the Protestor to rectify any wrongful acts of intermeddling, if established, as the parties awaited the outcome of the primary dispute.
13. Before this Court for determination are the summons for Confirmation of Grant dated December 28, 2022, the Application for Intermeddling dated January 25, 2024, and the Affidavit of Protest dated February 2, 2023.
14. Background
15. The late Lt. Gen. Leshan Nick Ole Letoluo passed away on March 9, 2021.
16. Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo (the widow) was married to the late Nick Leshan Ole Letoluo (the deceased) on December 13, 1969, under Maasai customary law. Their union was later solemnized on January 23, 1977, at the Kenya Air Force base in Eastleigh, Nairobi, under the provisions of the African Christian Marriage and Divorce Act, Cap 151.
17. The deceased and his wife were blessed with four children: Sheila Pereruan Leshan Griffin, Joy Namunyak Leshan Wanje, Kuntai Leshan, and Purko Leshan. Throughout their marriage, the family resided in various locations, including Narok and Nairobi. The deceased served the country with distinction in the Kenya Air Force, rising to the rank of Lieutenant General before retiring from active service in 2011.
18. He was survived by his wife, Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, and their four children: Sheila Pereruan Leshan Griffin, Joy Namunyak Leshan, Kuntai Leshan, and Purko Leshan.
19. Following the demise of the deceased, his widow, Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, together with their daughter, Joy Namunyak Leshan, and son, Kuntai Leshan, jointly applied for a Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate in respect of his Estate. The remaining two children, Sheila Pereruan, Leshan Griffin, and Purko Leshan, duly consented to the Petition.
20. In addition, the Administrators applied for and were granted a Special Limited Grant to enable them to administer the Estate. The said Grant was issued on December 20, 2021.
21. The Petition for the Full Grant of Letters of Administration was subsequently gazetted on February 25, 2022. While awaiting the expiry of the statutory six-month period before applying for confirmation of the Grant, Purity Somoine Meitamei (the Protester) filed an application seeking revocation of the Special Limited Grant. The basis of her Protest was that she and her two daughters had not been recognized as dependents of the deceased.
22. The Administrators opposed the Protester's application, and by a ruling delivered on October 27, 2022, the Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that such an application could only be brought adequately after the filing of an application for confirmation of the Grant.
23. As the statutory six-month period since the gazettment of the Petition had already lapsed, the Court proceeded to issue a Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate to the Administrators (Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, Joy Namunyak Leshan, and Leshan Kuntai) on November 3, 2022. It directed them to apply for confirmation of the Grant.
24. Under the Court's directive, the Administrators applied for confirmation of the Grant dated December 28, 2022, accompanied by an Affidavit and Schedule of Distribution outlining the proposed mode of distribution of the Estate among the beneficiaries. In that schedule, and purely out of goodwill, the Administrators allocated the sum of Kshs. 750,000.00 to the Protester, in recognition of the help that the deceased extended to her. However, it is essential to note that, under the law, she is not entitled to a share of the deceased's Estate.
25. Dissatisfied with the proposed allocation, the Protester filed an Affidavit of Protest dated February 2, 2023, seeking revocation of the Grant issued on November 3, 2022. Her claim was premised on the assertion that she was the deceased's second wife and had not been adequately provided for, and that the deceased's children, whom she claimed the deceased had recognised, were improperly excluded from the proposed distribution.
26. The Administrators opposed the Protest through a Reply to Affidavit of Protest sworn by Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo on March 22, 2023. In support of the response, an additional affidavit was sworn on March 28, 2023, by Josephat Tongei Letoluo, a brother of the deceased.
27. On March 29, 2023, the application for confirmation of the Grant and the Protest were placed before the Court for directions. On that date, the Court directed that both the application and the Protest be canvassed through written submissions.
28. Both parties complied with the Court's directions by filing their respective submissions, and the matter was thereafter reserved for judgment, scheduled for delivery on October 11, 2023. However, on the scheduled date, the Court did not deliver judgment. Instead, the Court observed that, in light of the Protester's contention that she was the wife of the deceased, it was necessary to hear the parties orally before rendering a final decision.
29. In the meantime, the Administrators filed an application dated January 25, 2024, seeking orders that the Protester be found guilty of interfering with the Estate of the deceased, specifically Motor Vehicle Registration Number KAU 928J, and be imprisoned for one year without the option of a fine. The motor vehicle will be reinstated in the name of the deceased.
30. Consequently, the hearing proceeded on April 8, 2024, January 22, 2025, and February 25, 2025.
31. Directions of the Court.
32. This Court considered the Petition for a special limited Grant dated December 15, 2021, and issued the following orders:
33. The Petition was certified as urgent.
34. A special limited grant was issued to Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo, Joy Namunyak Leshan, and Leshan Kuntai, strictly on the following terms:
35. The Grant was limited to the collection and preservation of Kshs. 5,000,000 held in a client's account by the firm Gikera & Vadgama Advocates.
36. The said firm was directed to pay the amount into an estate account designated in the names of the three petitioners within 21 days of the date of the order.
37. For a sum not exceeding Kshs. 200,000 was to be allocated toward the widow's immediate needs, and no other funds were to be withdrawn from the estate account without prior court approval.
38. The petitioners were required to file in the Court an estimate of the widow's personal and household expenses, as well as operational costs for the farm, within 21 days for the Court's consideration and further orders.
39. The Grant was to be drawn up in strict accordance with the terms above.
40. The Grant did not confer any power of distribution of the Estate.
41. The petitioners were required to file a substantive petition for the Grant of letters of administration within 30 days.
42. On May 26, 2022, this Court certified the application dated April 20, 2022, as urgent.
43. The Court considered the summons for revocation of the limited Grant dated April 20, 2022, and, in its ruling delivered on October 27, 2022, found no basis for revoking the limited Grant. The applicant was directed to file her application in the leading succession cause.
44. On November 3, 2022, the Court issued the following directions:
45. A temporary grant of letters of administration was issued to the petitioners.
46. The petitioners were to file and serve summons for confirmation of the Grant within 30 days.
47. Any person wishing to oppose confirmation was to file protests within 21 days of service.
48. iv. In the meantime, the petitioners were directed to fulfil all obligations under the earlier limited Grant.
49. On March 29, 2023, the Court directed that the Protest to the confirmation of Grant be canvassed by way of written submissions and that parties should also address the issue of distribution.
50. In its ruling delivered on October 11, 2023, the Court reviewed the above order and directed that the Protest be heard by way of oral evidence.
51. On February 13, 2024, the Court certified as urgent the application dated January 25, 2024.
52. On April 8, 2024, the Court directed that the evidence of Salome Leshan be taken de bene esse. It stated that other jurisdictional issues would be addressed in the Court's determination of the estate property.
53. On May 6, 2024, the Court certified as urgent the application dated May 6, 2024.
54. On May 15, 2024, the Court issued interim directions as follows:
55. Ms. Opondo was directed to liaise with counsel in the ELC matter (Environmental and Land Court) to secure the Estate's interest. The administrators were to cooperate to avoid any prejudice to the Estate.
56. The firm of Gikera & Vadgama Advocates was instructed to file and serve a detailed response to Mr. Kimathi's application, including accurate accounts of the proceeds from the sale of the Runda property.
57. On July 10, 2024, the Court reviewed its earlier orders of April 8, 2024, and held as follows:
58. The share of Salome Leshan in the proceeds from the sale of the Runda property did not form part of the Estate.
59. Her share was to be released forthwith, subject to lawful deductions and costs.
60. On November 8, 2024, by the parties' consent, the Court ordered that KCB Bank, Narok Branch, allow the administrators to withdraw Kshs 650,000 from Account No. 1292982896 to pay legal fees to Muigai Kemei Advocates.
61. On November 27, 2024, the Court adopted as an order the consent letter dated November 19, 2024.
62. On November 14, 2024, the Court certified as urgent the application dated October 22, 2024.
63. Evidence
A. Administrators' Case
64. The Administrators called two witnesses in support of their case: Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo (AW-1), the widow and one of the administrators of the Estate; and Josephat Tongei Letoluo (AW-2), a brother of the deceased.
65. Evidence of AW-1: Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo (Taken de bene esse)
66. AW-1 testified that she was lawfully married to the deceased, Leshan Nick Ole Letoluo, under Maasai customary law on December 13, 1969. The marriage was later formalized through a certificate of marriage dated January 23, 1977, which was necessary for the deceased's employment.
67. She stated that their matrimonial home is located at Nangiri Farm, situated on Title No. LRLR. Cis Mara/Ilmashariani/Morijo/290. She has lived on the said property since the late 1970s. The land, initially part of a group ranch, was distributed to members and is now registered in the name of the deceased. The couple also resided at Eastleigh Air Force Barracks during his military service.
68. Together, they had four children, namely:
• Shila Perughan
• Joy Namunyak
• Kuntai Leshan
• Purko Leshan
69. She emphasized that the deceased had no other children.
70. AW-1 described a cordial relationship with the deceased and his family, noting he had thirteen siblings.
i. She listed additional properties acquired during their marriage, including:
ii. LRLR No. 7785/814 (Original No. 7785/10/553) in Runda, registered jointly in their names and later sold to Abdulahi Mohammed Ahmed for Kshs. 65,000,000.
iii. A property in Elementaita was later sold.
iv. A property in Kongoni, Naivasha, was also sold, and the proceeds were used to develop their home in Narok.
v. Two additional parcels (2 acres and 3 acres) near their home, which were not yet transferred to the deceased at the time of his death.
vi. LRLR No. Cis Mara/Ilmashariani/Morijo/1189 at Nanapisho, measuring approximately 19–20 acres, also untransferred.
vii. LRLR No. Cis Mara/Ilmashariani/Morijo/1190, measuring 5 acres, allegedly purchased from one Sankale Oturi.
71. She testified that LRLR No. 290 had been extensively developed with poultry, orchards, livestock (including beef and dairy cattle, goats, sheep, and fish), and a modern homestead. The property was also the site of a house built for the eldest son. However, she stated that he does not reside there due to the presence of one Purity Somoine Meitamei, who moved into the house in 2017 when Salome had traveled to the UK for her granddaughter's wedding.
72. She denied knowledge of any customary marriage between the deceased and Purity and stated that despite confronting the deceased, she was never given any explanation. She identified Purity as a fellow church member, previously married to one Henry Kuya, with whom she had four children. She noted that Purity's family and hers belonged to the same Maasai clan, and thus could not lawfully marry, as such a union was deemed taboo. She stated that Purity's divorce was finalized on August 16, 2027, and she had no knowledge of the deceased supporting Purity's children.
73. She disputed Purity's allegations that LRLR No. 290 had been subdivided, and a portion allocated to her.
74. She testified that during the deceased's illness, Purity would allegedly sneak in to visit him. She was informed that Purity attended the deceased's funeral but was not part of the official program.
75. She proposed the following mode of distribution:
76. She stated that she wishes the property to be shared as follows.
i. 30 acres of LRLR No. 290 to the sons.
ii. The balance of LRLR No. 290 to herself and her daughters.
iii. Her sons pursue titles to the properties yet to be transferred.
iv. The house occupied by Purity is to be allocated to the firstborn son.
v. Proceeds of the Runda property to be divided equally, half to herself and the other half to be shared among the children.
vi. She expressed a willingness to give something to Purity "just as was given to Hagar in the Bible."
77. On cross-examination, she admitted that the deceased would occasionally go to the house where Purity lived with the firstborn son but could not confirm how long Purity had resided there, given the distance.
78. She stated that the deceased did not distribute his property during his lifetime.
79. On re-examination, she clarified that Purity's house was approximately 1½ km from her residence. It was built around 2014–2015, and she discovered Purity living there in 2016–2017. Initially, they were on good terms, and Purity used to visit with her children.
80. Evidence of AW-2: Josephat Tongei Letoluo
81. AW-2 adopted his Affidavit, sworn on March 28, 2023, as his evidence-in-chief. He stated that he is a biological brother to the deceased, born of the same mother, and that he helped raise him. He confirmed that he had known Salome since her marriage to the deceased, as per Maasai customary law, in 1969.
82. He acknowledged knowing Purity Somoine Meitamei and the children she had with her previous husband. He testified that Purity was present at the burial of the deceased but emphasized that the deceased had never allocated any property to her. He denied knowledge of any customary marriage between Purity and the deceased, stating that she was previously married in church to one Henry in 2001. He noted that while Joel Lemishen (another brother) had made allegations, he was problematic and not a reliable source.
83. During cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased had moved from the first home and begun residing in another house, implying a possible change in domestic arrangements.
84. On re-examination, he stated that he never witnessed any marriage negotiations or meetings between the deceased and Purity's family. He reiterated that Purity moved into the deceased's house with children from her prior marriage, which he described as a curse since they belong to the same clan.
85. . Protester's Case
86. The Protester, Purity Somoine Meitamei, called four witnesses in support of her claim to be a surviving spouse of the deceased and thus a rightful beneficiary of his Estate. The witnesses were:
87. Herself – PW1,Her father – PW4, Bensale Meitamei,Chief Ntete Ole Letelou – PW3 Reverend Lemishen Joel Ole Letoluo – PW2
88. Evidence of PW1 – Purity Somoine Meitamei
89. PW1 adopted her Affidavit, sworn on February 2, 2023, as her evidence-in-chief. She testified that she was married to the deceased in 2015 under Maasai customary law, and they lived together as husband and wife. She stated that they built a house together on the deceased's land and cohabited until his death.
90. She alleged that the deceased had a strained relationship with his first wife, Salome, and that he took her two sons as his own, paid their school fees, and provided for the family. She claimed to have divorced her previous husband, Henry Kakuyia, in 2016, and a decree absolute was issued in 2017. During the deceased's illness, she cared for him in the hospital.
91. She claimed that the deceased subdivided his land into four portions—for Salome, herself, a borehole, and a factory—and left her with a tractor, motor vehicle, and livestock. She further stated that she was excluded from the deceased's burial, which was conducted "secretly" by members of the first house.
92. On cross-examination, she confirmed that she was 47 years old while the deceased was 73 at the time of death. She acknowledged that PW2, Reverend Lemishen, was her Sunday school teacher. Although she claimed to have produced school fee receipts as evidence of the deceased's support for her sons, she admitted that most support had been through M-Pesa, yet no records were made.
93. She admitted that the motor vehicle allegedly left to her was transferred to her name after confirmation of the Grant. She maintained she was married under customary law and referred to a family photo with the deceased and her four children as proof of cohabitation.
94. On re-examination, she reiterated that her divorce was finalized in 2017, and that the deceased took responsibility for her sons while she raised the daughters.
95. Evidence of PW2 – Reverend Lemishen Joel Ole Letoluo
96. PW2 adopted his Affidavit sworn on February 2, 2023. He stated that he was the deceased's younger brother. He alleged that the deceased had a problematic relationship with Salome and that she did not accompany him to the hospital during a heart attack. He claimed that family elders decided the deceased should take a second wife, leading to his marriage with Purity.
97. On cross-examination, he maintained that Purity became the deceased's wife in 2016. He stated that dowry was not paid, as none is traditionally required where the woman was previously married. He supported the assertion that the deceased took care of Purity's children.
98. Evidence of PW3 – Chief Ntete Ole Letelou (Retired Senior Chief)
99. PW3 relied on his Affidavit sworn on February 2, 2023. He described himself as a cousin of the deceased and supported the Protester's claim of marriage, noting that the deceased built her a house where she currently lives with her children.
100. On cross-examination, he stated that the deceased often complained about marital issues with Salome and had asked for Purity's hand in marriage. He claimed to be one of the elders sent to negotiate the marriage, and that the dowry was paid. However, no documentation or details of the dowry ceremony were provided.
101. Evidence of PW4 – Bensale Meitamei (Father of the Protester)
102. PW4 adopted his Affidavit as part of his evidence. He testified that the deceased personally approached him seeking Purity's hand in marriage. A delegation of elders was allegedly sent to his home, and dowry was paid in instalments up to 2021.
103. During cross-examination, Bensale revealed that he and the deceased belonged to the same clan and attended school together. He acknowledged that Salome was also his age-mate and confirmed her lawful marriage to the deceased, though he could not remember the date.
104. Crucially, he admitted that under Maasai customary norms, members of the same clan do not intermarry, and thus, Purity would traditionally be regarded as a "daughter" to the deceased. This testimony aligned with that of AW-2 (Tongei) and PW3, raising significant questions about the validity of the alleged marriage.
105. He also conceded that Purity had previously been married to Henry Kakuyia, a union solemnized in church. While initially claiming no dowry had been paid, he later admitted under further questioning that Kakuyia had fathered the children.
106. When pressed on details of the dowry negotiations, Bensale claimed that minutes were taken by the Protester's brother, but was unable to produce any records. His account contradicted earlier statements by Reverend Lemishen (who said no minutes existed) and Chief Ntete (who claimed to have written them).
107. He claimed that part of the dowry was paid via M-Pesa but failed to produce any transaction records to support this claim. He was also unable to identify any specific attendees at the alleged dowry negotiation meetings.
108. On further questioning, Bensale acknowledged that, under customary law, a woman cannot be married to two men simultaneously. When shown a decree absolute, he conceded that Purity was still legally married to Kakuyia as of 2016. His oral testimony materially contradicted his Affidavit, casting doubt on the credibility of both his evidence and that of the Protester.
109. Directions of the Court.
110. Under the directions of the Court, both the Administrators and the Objector filed written submissions in support of their respective positions.
111. The Administrators' Submissions
112. The Administrators submitted that the Protestor had failed to prove the existence of a valid customary marriage between herself and the deceased. They argued that both the deceased and the Protestor lacked the legal capacity to contract a customary marriage during the subsistence of their respective civil marriages. Consequently, the Protestor cannot qualify as a second wife or widow of the deceased. In support of this position, the Administrators relied on several legal authorities including Black's Law Dictionary, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 17, Sections 107(1), 107(2), 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80), and Section 43 of the Marriage Act No. 4 of 2016. They also cited numerous judicial precedents including: In Re Estate of Daniel Olala Nyawawa (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, Elizabeth Wamala vs Jolly Kasend & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2014, Ndele Ole Kimiti vs Montesia Ole Kores, Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1973, In Re Estate of Fredrick Clavence Kittany [2002] eKLR, Sakina Sote Kaittany & Another v Mary Wamaitha [1995] eKLR, Milena Bora v Liana Tamburelli [2016] eKLR, In Re Estate of Giovanni Gremmo (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, Machani v Vernoor [1985] eKLR, MWK v AMW [2017] eKLR, In Re Estate of Anyika David Lengou (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, Hortensia Wanjiku Yawe v The Public Trustee, Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1976, andIn Re Estate of Ruiru Muchohi Gikonyo [2022] eKLR.
113. The Administrators further submitted that all properties comprising the deceased's Estate were acquired through the joint efforts of the deceased and his surviving widow, Salome Naanyu Leshan. The Protestor, not being recognized as a wife or a dependent, is therefore not entitled to a share of the Estate.
114. The Administrators contended that the Protestor's children are neither biological children of the deceased nor his dependents. As such, they have no claim to his Estate. The Administrators relied on Sections 3(2) and 29 of the Law of Succession Act, and the following authorities Estate of the Late M'Thigai Muchangi (Deceased) [2020] eKLR, In Re Estate of Jackson Nicholas Kyengo Mulwa (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, E.M.M v I.G.M & Another, Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2012, In Re Estate of Michael Ngigi Kamami (Deceased) [2024] eKLR, Beatrice Ciamutua Rugamba v Fredrick Nkari Mutegi & 5 Others [2016] eKLR, In Re Estate of ECC (Deceased) [2025] eKLR, and Sarah Kanini Thigunku v Elizaphan Njuki Thigunku [2016] eKLR.
115. The Administrators submitted that, since the Protestor and her daughters are not dependents of the deceased, it was not necessary to seek their consent during the filing of the Petition for letters of administration or the summons for confirmation of Grant. They relied on Section 76(a)-(e) of the Law of Succession Act, Re Estate of Jacob Njiru Mbarire (Deceased) [2022] eKLR, and Matheka & Another v Matheka [2005] 2 KLR 455.
116. Finally, the Administrators submitted that the Protestor's actions amounted to unlawful intermeddling with the Estate. In particular, her Act of taking possession of, transferring, and utilizing the deceased's motor vehicle without legal authority or a grant of representation is in contravention of Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. In support of this position, they relied on the following authorities: In the Matter of the Estate of Veronica Njoki Wakagoto (Deceased) [2013] KEHC 1930 (KLR), In Re Estate of Lawrence Nginyo Kariuki (Deceased) [2021] eKLR, Benson Mutuma Muriungi v C.E.O. Kenya Police Sacco & Another, Re Estate of Kimutai Tiony (Deceased) [2019] eKLR, andGladys Nkirote M'Itunga v Julius Majau M'Ituga [2016] eKLR.
117. Protestor's submissions.
118. The Protestor submitted that she was lawfully married to the deceased under Maa customary law and therefore qualified as a wife within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Law of Succession Act. She averred that following the irretrievable breakdown of her previous marriage to one Henry Kukuyia in 2014, she and her former husband began living separately, each establishing their own homes. Mr. Kukuyia thereafter moved in with anoth
[...truncated]