For decades, succession disputes in Kenya largely involved widows or siblings fighting over property. However, a new trend is emerging in courtrooms, with grandchildren now suing over inheritance.
From Machakos to Kakamega and Eldoret to Nairobi and Meru, courts are witnessing an increase in cases where grandsons and granddaughters are bypassing traditional family negotiations and going to court to claim land, homes, livestock and other assets they believe are rightfully theirs.
These disputes stem from a volatile mix of poverty, changing family structures, rising land values, mistrust among relatives, and a growing awareness of legal rights.
For many grandchildren, especially those whose parents died before their grandparents, these battles are not just abstract legal contests, but desperate fights for survival, identity and belonging.
A recent ruling by the Environment and Land Court in Eldoret captured the emotional and legal complexities of such disputes.
In this case, Kipchumba Rutto sought to reclaim land parcel Lembus/Torongo/33, arguing it belonged to the estate of his late grandmother, Teriki Chepkunur. He accused relatives of unfairly benefiting from family land while excluding his lineage.
However, the court dismissed his application after finding that he had filed proceedings against several deceased individuals without appointing legal representatives for their estates.
In the application, the estate of Kibiego Cherugut was named as the first respondent, and the estate of Moses Kibiwott Bett as the seventh. The court also established that some of the other respondents had died.
The judge was blunt. Citing the Machakos case of Rodah Wangikuyu Mutunga vs Kitole Mutinda, the court said: “In law, a suit can’t be maintained against a dead person unless a personal representative has been appointed.”
The court ruled that the case was legally defective from the outset because proceedings cannot be brought against deceased persons without administrators representing their estates.
Although Mr Rutto lost the case on procedural grounds, the row reflects a much broader reality unfolding within many families.
Notable succession dispute
Traditionally, inheritance disputes were handled within the family or clan structure.
Most inheritance disputes involving grandchildren arise when their parents die before their grandparents.
Under Section 41 of the Law of Succession Act, grandchildren can inherit through the principle of representation. They inherit the share that their deceased parent would have received, as if they were their parent.
However, problems arise when uncles or aunts distribute property without consulting them.
In many cases, grandchildren claim that succession proceedings are conducted in secret, grants are obtained covertly, and land is transferred before vulnerable family members realise what has happened.
Following the death of his grandmother, Veronica Njoki Wakagoto, one of her sons reportedly obtained letters of administration covertly and sold the family’s land before the succession process had been completed.
Jackson challenged the transaction in court. The court found the sale to be unlawful, revoking the grant and ruling that the administrator had illegally interfered with the estate.
The judge observed that selling estate property before proper confirmation of grants was intermeddling, which is an offence under the Law of Succession Act.
This ruling encouraged many grandchildren across the country who felt sidelined by relatives controlling family estates.
Court records show another major reason why grandchildren are suing relatives concerns the shrinking size of family land.
In the 1960s and 1970s, families could easily divide large plots of land among their sons. Today, population growth has drastically reduced the amount of available land. In some regions, original ancestral land has been subdivided repeatedly over generations until only tiny portions remain.
As a result, every acre now matters. Grandchildren who grew up expecting an inheritance often find that there is little or nothing left once the land has been subdivided or sold.
This has fuelled accusations of fraud, forgery and exclusion.
Women’s succession rights
In western Kenya, courts have dealt with many cases in which grandchildren have claimed that title deeds were altered or that succession proceedings were manipulated to favour one side of the family. In one such dispute in Kakamega, Jonathan Mahugi Odera claimed that land belonging to his late grandmother had been transferred fraudulently.
Although Jonathan’s case failed because he could not prove fraud beyond reasonable doubt, the dispute highlighted how deeply inheritance conflicts now run within extended families.
Historically, many communities have excluded daughters and their children from inheriting ancestral land.
However, the Constitution and recent court decisions have increasingly protected women’s succession rights.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that daughters, whether married or unmarried, are entitled to inherit family property equally.
This constitutional protection has empowered granddaughters and the children of deceased daughters to challenge discriminatory practices.
In the case of John Kutondo Juma vs Julia Masitsa Luchuma, for example, the court rejected the argument that married daughters should be excluded from inheritance.
“Article 27 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination,” the judge ruled. This evolving legal landscape has widened the pool of potential beneficiaries and intensified family disputes.
Some uncles are now being sued by nieces as well as nephews, who are asserting their constitutional inheritance rights.
The rise of social media and increased public awareness of legal rights have also contributed to this trend. Today, many young Kenyans follow court cases online, watch legal discussions on TikTok and Facebook, and learn about inheritance rights through digital platforms.
Unlike previous generations, grandchildren are now more aware that they can legally challenge relatives. Civil society organisations and legal aid groups have educated communities about their succession rights. Consequently, many disputes that would previously have remained hidden within families are now being brought before the formal courts.
In the highlands of Kiambu, Joseph Kinyanjui Goiyo’s estate became a battleground between a grandson’s sense of duty and a widow’s proposed distribution plan after he died in 2003. The property in question, Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/569, measures approximately 7.75 acres.
For years, Margaret Mumbi Kimani, the estate administrator, had proposed a distribution plan that largely excluded the direct lineage of one of the deceased’s sons. She allocated two-and-a-half acres to Mary Wanjiru Ngigi, the daughter of a buyer, and 1.2 acres to Virginia Thitu Kangara, a widow who claimed to have purchased land from the family.
However, John Kabiru Njuguna, a grandson of the deceased, strongly objected. In an affidavit filed in July 2022, he accused the administrators of intermeddling and colluding to disinherit the legal husband of a deceased daughter, John Philip Kibera.
Share of grandfather’s land
He argued that Mary Wanjiru Ngigi’s family had already been compensated with Sh10,000 for their claim and should not receive a share of the grandfather’s land. He described the proposed allocation as a fraudulent scheme to dispose of land that did not belong to them.
However, the court delivered a mixed outcome. In a ruling delivered on May 15, the judge upheld the allocation of 2.5 acres to Mary Wanjiru Ngigi, noting that this had been determined in Kiambu CMCC No. 22 of 2003 and had never been overturned.
However, the court agreed with the grandson that Virginia Thitu Kangara’s claim to 1.2 acres could not be settled within the succession proceedings and would have to be pursued separately.
Although the grandson won the argument on transparency, he lost much of the land battle.
The court invoked Section 38 of the Succession Act and ruled that the remaining 3.75 acres should be divided equally between the three surviving children, thus denying the lineage the larger share it had sought.
Nevertheless, this case highlights a growing trend in Kenyan succession disputes: grandchildren are becoming more vocal.
In Bomet, another inheritance dispute took a darker turn involving allegations of forgery. The dispute centred on the estate of Kiprono Kisaje Taparoshio and the Kericho/Kamsimbiri/651 plot of land.
In June 2024, Simion Kipkurui Rono filed an application seeking the revocation of a grant confirmed six years earlier. His claim was explosive: he alleged that his consent form had been forged.
He informed the court that he was illiterate and usually used a thumbprint, so could not have signed the disputed documents.
His mother, Alice Chepkorir Kisaje, who was also the first petitioner, supported the challenge, claiming that her signature had also been forged.
“My signature was forged,” she told the court. However, the second petitioner, Alfred Rono, defended the succession process, arguing that the objector was being dishonest and that the grant had been confirmed in open court in 2018, with all parties present.
In a ruling delivered on May 18, the court dismissed the application, finding that the allegations of forgery had not been proven.
“In proving the forgery, the first petitioner bore the burden of proof,” the judge ruled. “She did not lead such evidence. Her claim of forgery without any proof rendered the claim an allegation.”
The court also noted that the objector had waited six years to challenge the succession, despite having allegedly attended the 2018 proceedings. This delay ultimately weakened the case.
For many grandchildren in Kenya, this ruling was a stark reminder that, while courts may hear inheritance claims, legal rights must be pursued promptly and supported by evidence.
