For years, the sprawling estate left behind by Machakos businessman David Munuve Nthiwa became the centre of a painful family war that split siblings, triggered accusations of greed and betrayal, and exposed deep cultural beliefs about who deserves to inherit property.
By the time the dispute reached its climax at the Machakos High Court, one son had lost his eyesight after an alleged violent confrontation linked to the inheritance row, another accused his sister of manipulating their late father’s wishes, while the sister insisted her brothers simply could not accept that daughters deserved equal shares.
When Justice Rhoda Rutto finally delivered judgment on May 7, 2026, she issued a ruling that could shape succession disputes in Kenya for years to come.
“The testimony of the first protestor revealed a preference for sons receiving larger shares — a position that cannot be reconciled with constitutional principles,” Justice Rutto declared.
With those words, the court firmly rejected attempts to allocate male children larger portions of inheritance merely because they were sons.
The ruling arose from a bitter succession dispute involving the estate of Mr Nthiwa, who died on June 2, 2012, without leaving behind a formal will.
He was survived by his widow and eight children: Ruth Nduku Nzioka, Serah Mwikali Kioko, Michael Mutinda Munuve, Jayne Mumbua Munuve, Boniface Musyoka Munuve, Agnes Nthenya Munuve, Erick Maingi Munuve and Nahum Ndinda Munuve.
At stake was a multimillion-shilling estate made up of more than 15 parcels of land across Machakos County, including prime plots in Ndalani, Matetani, Itwikuni, Kangundo and Tala Market.
The family’s legal battle formally began after the court issued letters of administration in September 2021 to two of the deceased’s children — Michael Mutinda Munuve and Serah Mwikali Kioko.
But even before the grant could be confirmed, deep disagreements emerged over how the property should be distributed.
In September 2022, the administrators filed a summons for confirmation of the grant and proposed a mode of sharing the estate.
That proposal immediately triggered opposition from Michael Mutinda Munuve and Boniface Musyoka Munuve, who filed an affidavit of protest.
At the centre of the dispute was a question that courts across Kenya increasingly face in succession battles: should daughters inherit equally with sons?
In court papers, she stated that the first protestor refused to sign documents supporting the proposed distribution because he believed sons deserved larger shares than daughters.
In November 2024, the siblings agreed on the distribution of eight properties.
Among them was Ndalani/Ndalani Block 1/1626, which was to be shared equally between Serah Mwikali Kioko and Erick Maingi Munuve.
Another property, Itwikuni/Mbondoni, was to be divided equally between Boniface Musyoka Munuve and Erick Maingi Munuve.
But despite the partial settlement, disagreement persisted over 15 other properties, forcing the matter back before the High Court.
When oral hearings finally commenced in September and November 2025, the family conflict unfolded publicly in painful detail.
Michael Mutinda Munuve told the court that he generally did not object to the proposed distribution except for one crucial issue — what he described as an inaccurate translation of a handwritten record of the deceased’s wishes written in Kikamba.
But during cross-examination, his position became unmistakably clear.
According to the judgment, he maintained “it was his firm position that the distribution should not be equal.”
His brother, Boniface Musyoka Munuve, painted an even darker picture of the family feud.
The unemployed sibling, who told the court he had lost his eyesight, testified that he placed cautions on some family land to stop interference by relatives.
He further alleged that he had been assaulted by his sister and brother after disputes emerged over the surveying of some parcels.
The matter, he said, had been reported to the police.
Boniface also attempted to challenge the reliability of his father’s wishes by claiming the deceased’s leukaemia may have affected his mental capacity in his final years.
Justice Rutto noted that although the deceased had indeed suffered illness, there was no expert evidence proving he lacked mental capacity.
“Although there is evidence that the deceased suffered from illness in his later years, no medical or expert evidence has been placed before this court to demonstrate that he lacked testamentary capacity at the material time,” the judge ruled.
Ms Kioko defended her role as administrator, telling the court that she had acted in accordance with her father’s wishes.
She admitted that some assets had been sold and parts of the estate developed, but insisted those actions had been done prudently.
She also acknowledged receiving rental income from estate property, although the land remained registered in the deceased’s name.
Importantly, she denied allegations that the deceased intended unequal distribution between sons and daughters.
According to her testimony, the deceased’s handwritten sketches and subdivision proposals merely illustrated intended allocations and were not meant to create gender-based distinctions.
“The will does not provide for unequal distribution between sons and daughters, but rather envisages equal sharing,” she testified.
The protestors, however, argued that their father had already distributed his wealth before his death.
In submissions filed in December 2025, they claimed that around 2005, the deceased orally and physically allocated land to all eight children in the presence of family members.
They accused Ms Kioko of manipulating the succession process, altering their father’s wishes and benefiting unfairly from estate assets.
They further relied on Section 42 of the Law of Succession Act, arguing that gifts made during the deceased’s lifetime ought to be respected during final distribution.
The court, however, found that while beneficiaries had occupied certain portions of land and undertaken developments, there had never been a formal transfer or registration of ownership.
Justice Rutto ruled that the deceased’s actions amounted only to indicators of intention rather than legally binding transfers.
“While the deceased’s actions and writings are relevant indicators of intention, they do not amount to a complete placement of ownership,” the judge stated.
Justice Rutto found that some beneficiaries had unlawfully sold, leased or developed parts of the estate before confirmation of grant.
Under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, such conduct is prohibited.
“I therefore find that the estate was indeed subjected to intermeddling,” the judge ruled.
She added that unauthorised dealings could not be sanctioned and adjustments would have to be made during final distribution to prevent unfair advantage.
At the heart of the ruling was the court’s interpretation of Section 38 of the Law of Succession Act.
“The law is explicit,” Justice Rutto wrote.
“Where an intestate is survived by children only, the net estate shall be equally divided among them.”
The judge cited previous High Court decisions affirming that daughters are entitled to inherit on equal footing with sons and that gender discrimination violates Article 27 of the Constitution.
While acknowledging that some situations may justify departures from strict mathematical equality, Justice Rutto stressed that such departures cannot be based on gender.
“The suggestion that sons should receive larger shares than daughters is not supported by law,” she ruled.
The court also addressed disputes surrounding Tala Plot No. 6A, which had generated fierce disagreement among the siblings.
After reviewing documentary evidence, including correspondence from the deceased’s advocates, Justice Rutto found that the property had been intended for Erick Maingi Munuve.
“The first protestor’s occupation thereof, having been expressly contested, cannot confer ownership,” she ruled.
Justice Rutto adopted in full the mediation settlement reached in November 2024 and directed that those agreed distributions would form part of the final confirmed grant.
For the remaining properties — including multiple parcels in Ndalani, Kangundo and Tala — the court ordered equal distribution among all eight children.
The administrators were directed to prepare and file within 60 days, a reconciled schedule accounting for all properties, prior benefits received and proceeds from disposed assets.
Justice Rutto’s decision now adds to a growing body of jurisprudence affirming that such practices cannot stand under Kenya’s Constitution.
For the Munuve family, however, the ruling represents more than a constitutional statement.
During proceedings, Boniface Musyoka Munuve had told the court he hoped resolution of the dispute would allow him to access resources for medical treatment after losing his eyesight.
Other siblings urged the court to expedite the matter so beneficiaries could move on with their lives.
But in resolving the conflict, the court delivered a message likely to echo far beyond Machakos.
Justice Rutto concluded that while the protestors had raised legitimate concerns regarding intermeddling and inaccuracies in the proposed distribution, their broader position, favouring sons over daughters, could not survive constitutional scrutiny.
“Their reliance on the deceased’s alleged lifetime distribution, while relevant, cannot override clear statutory and constitutional provisions governing intestate succession,” she ruled.
