The High Court has ruled that Sh22 million in insurance and employment benefits left by the late Justice David Majanja must be shared among his heirs, rejecting a bid to have the money paid to a single beneficiary under the judge’s written will.
In a ruling delivered yesterday in Nairobi, the court held that proceeds from the Judiciary’s Group Life Assurance policy and staff benefits were not “choses in action” bequeathed in the will and therefore formed part of Majanja’s intestate assets.
“Choses in action” is a legal term referring to intangible personal property rights that can only be claimed or enforced through legal action, such as debts or legal claims.
The court directed two court-appointed administrators to expedite confirmation proceedings for distributing the funds alongside other assets not covered by the will.
Justice Majanja died on July 10, 2024 , leaving behind a written will dated June 21, 2014, as well as additional property not included in it. The executors of his will, Joseph Ndung’u Kihanya and Steve Biko Luseno, obtained validation, and the grant was confirmed by court in July 2025.
Since some assets fell outside the will, beneficiaries later appointed Gerishom Lujitio Majanja and Genard Louis Muhanji Majanja to administer the intestate portion. A letter from the judge’s village chief, dated August 27, 2024, and filed in court, confirmed that he was survived by seven heirs.
Illegally disinherit others
The dispute arose when one beneficiary, Martin Aluvisia, petitioned the court to compel the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary to release the Sh22 million held as Group Life Assurance proceeds.
It was argued that a clause in the will—which bequeathed “all monies in Justice Majanja’s bank account, shares & choses in action” to him—covered the insurance and employment benefits.
Aluvisia contended that withholding the funds violated both the confirmed grant and the testator’s intent.
Another beneficiary, Annette Lutivini, opposed the application, asserting that the benefits were governed by nomination rules under the Insurance Act and retirement laws, not the will’s clause on choses in action.
She argued that since no nomination existed, the money should be treated as part of the unadministered estate and distributed under intestacy laws. Paying it to a single beneficiary, she warned, would “illegally disinherit” the others.
To resolve the matter, the court ordered the Judiciary to disclose any nominations. In response, the Chief Registrar confirmed that Justice Majanja “did not fill any beneficiary nomination form” for either the Group Life Assurance policy or his retirement benefits.
The court then examined whether such benefits qualified as “choses in action” and concluded they did not.
“They are administered by the entities without legal action in the form of a lawsuit or judicial proceedings,” the court stated.
Accordingly, the court ruled that the proceeds were not covered by the will and could not be disbursed under Justice Majanja’s last written wishes.
It cited the Insurance Act, which stipulates that where no valid nomination exists, benefits must be paid to the policyholder’s heirs or legal representatives—reinforcing the conclusion that the funds belonged to the intestate estate.
“The Group Life Insurance proceeds and employee benefits from Judiciary are defined benefits which are defined in advance. They are administered by the entities without legal action in form of law suit or judicial proceedings. They are therefore not Choses in Action,” said the court.
The ruling clarified how employer-backed insurance and benefits should be handled in the absence of a nomination.
The administrators were ordered to file summons for confirmation of the intestate assets, including the insurance and benefits, within 14 days. A hearing has been scheduled for March 4, 2026.
