A widow will jointly administer the estate of her late husband, valued at over Sh54 million, alongside two other women who were not legally married to him before his death.
The assets consist of properties located in Mombasa and Taita Taveta counties.
Despite the Family Court in Mombasa finding that the two women were not legally married to the deceased and were not entitled to inherit on their own behalf, Justice Gregory Mutai concluded that the two women should also administer the estate on behalf of the children they had with the deceased.
“Letter of administration intestate to issue forthwith to CWM, AA and KM,” said the judge.
The judge observed that a continuing trust in favour of the minors is established by the law, making the two women the most suitable individuals to protect their children's interests.
Justice Mutai rendered this ruling while rejecting an objection raised by KM against the grant application, arguing that she was also entitled as she was married to the deceased.
KM went to court to challenge the issuance of the management documents, stating that she is the deceased's dependent and the mother of two children fathered by him.
She contended that she was intentionally excluded from the letters of administration application despite being a rightful beneficiary of the estate.
“The petitioners have intentionally misled and misrepresented to this court by including a child who is neither a biological nor adopted child of the deceased," she stated.
She expressed concern that the alleged child was only adopted by the deceased's widow long after the deceased's death and is not a legally recognized beneficiary of the estate.
Furthermore, she pointed out that her personal property was inaccurately listed as part of the deceased's assets when it did not belong to that estate.
According to her, the widow has violated an agreement made by the family regarding the distribution of the estate.
However, the widow, CWM, objected to including KM in the property, arguing that she is the deceased's only legal wife.
To support her argument, the widow provided their marriage certificate, which indicates that they were married over 15 years ago.
"KM is not dependent of the deceased," she emphasised.
The widow, however, acknowledged that KM’s children were beneficiaries as they were fathered by her deceased husband out of wedlock.
She also pointed out that another child, whose status as a beneficiary is being disputed, was the deceased's own, having been adopted before his premature death.
The widow refuted the claim that KM's personal belongings were listed among the assets owned by the deceased.
On her part, AA opposed the objection and accused KM of being evasive and uncooperative, alleging that she desired the deceased's assets to be shared with his family members.
Additionally, AA asserted her status as a beneficiary due to having a child with the deceased.
Justice Mutai concluded that CWM was the lawful wife of the deceased, emphasising that the marriage was monogamous as per the law.
"Given this fact, the deceased could not have legally entered into another marriage with KM. Therefore, this court is not convinced that KM was the deceased's wife," stated the judge.
Justice Mutai observed that although KM was not married to the deceased, her children with him were automatically entitled to inherit from his estate.
