A succession dispute between an aunt and her niece took a deeply modern twist after private WhatsApp messages about an alleged disinheritance plan surfaced in court, exposing how fragile trust, grief, and everyday technology can collide in personal family conflicts.
What began as an inheritance dispute after a mother’s death quickly spiralled into a confrontation at the Constitutional court over access, control and family trust.
The petitioner, Elizabeth Waithira, a Kenyan living in Namibia, told the court she returned home in mid-2021 to help resolve issues surrounding her late sister’s estate. The family had agreed she would retrieve documents from their parents’ house in Buruburu, Nairobi.
But she said her niece, who lived in the house, blocked her from entering. The situation deteriorated into a confrontation. She accused her niece of insulting and assaulting her when she tried to gain access.
At the same time, she began to suspect something was wrong with her phone. She said the device would reboot unexpectedly. During calls, she heard echoes, as if someone else was listening.
She also noticed that people close to her seemed to know private details she had not shared, heightening her suspicion that her phone had been compromised. The information, she said, existed only in her phone.
Fearing she had been hacked, she switched off the phone and obtained a new number.
Months later, she was served with court papers in the succession case. It was then that the dispute took a more personal turn.
The petitioner told the court she was shocked to find screenshots of her private WhatsApp conversations with her contacts attached as evidence by her niece. The messages dated back to June and July 2021.
Some of the conversations included exchanges with her lawyer, which she described as confidential and privileged.
She insisted she had never shared the messages and accused her niece of unlawfully accessing her phone. She argued that the act violated her constitutional rights to privacy and dignity.
WhatsApp chats presented in court.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
The petitioner urged the court to bar the use of the messages in determining the succession case, arguing that the evidence was unlawfully obtained and therefore inadmissible.
However, the niece, Angela Chemeli, denied intruding into her aunt’s privacy and offered a different account. In her response, Chemeli said the messages were not obtained through hacking. Instead, the court heard that the petitioner had linked her WhatsApp account to Chemeli’s laptop through WhatsApp Web and failed to log out.
The niece claimed that the linking happened during her visit to the aunt in Namibia, allowing the messages to remain accessible. She told the court that the messages continued to appear on her laptop even after travelling back to Nairobi.
When she read them, she claimed that she discovered discussions about plans to disinherit her and her sister from their mother’s estate, including a car.
The case exposed how easily personal digital communication can become part of family disputes, especially when trust breaks down.
However, the Constitutional Division Court did not determine whether the petitioner’s privacy had been violated. It dismissed the case, ruling that the dispute had been filed before the wrong forum and without following the proper legal process.
The court said the question of whether the messages were properly obtained should have been addressed in the succession case where they were presented.
“The issue of whether or not the evidence obtained in the manner complained of was admissible in court was a matter that the court that was handling the succession case was fully seized of and was the proper place to raise an objection,” said the judge.
The court found that the petition was a “collateral attack” on the earlier succession proceedings and warned against reopening matters that should have been handled within that case.
“The Petition as framed is a collateral attack directed at the Succession proceedings, which, if allowed, has the potential to undermine the finality of that decision, yet the proper way to challenge such a decision is by appeal or review,” said the court.
The judge noted that individuals who feel their personal data has been misused can seek redress through the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner.
The court further observed that claims of hacking could amount to a criminal offence and require investigation.
“Without the benefit of a forensic investigation, any attempt to resolve the issue based on contested bare allegations is speculative and futile, as no definitive finding can be reached based on the inconclusive nature of the evidence on record,” said the court, citing the difficulty of resolving such claims based on competing accounts.
The court concluded that the petition did not raise genuine constitutional issues and failed to meet the required legal threshold.
