The daughter of Kanu-era politician Joseph Kamotho has escalated the fight to block her mother from evicting her from their Kitisuru home to the Court of Appeal.
The court in a ruling on December 19 allowed Marianne Nyokabi Kamotho to pursue the appeal, seeking to block her mother Eunice Wambui Kamotho from evicting her from the matrimonial home.
Ms Nyokabi pleaded with the court to allow her file the appeal out of time, arguing that she became aware of the court decision, which allowed her mother to evict her from the property, after the ruling was delivered. The Environment and Land Court had on March 30, 2025 ruled that as the surviving spouse of the late politician, she had the right over the property ahead of her children.
Raila Odinga greets Eunice Kamotho, widow of the late Joseph Kamotho, during his burial ceremony in Murang'a on December 17, 2014.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The court had ruled that although children are automatic beneficiaries of the estate, the matriarch has the fiduciary duty to manage the estate in the best interest of the children.
The daughter moved to the Court of Appeal, explaining the delay she encountered before filing the appeal.
“Given the circumstances, I consider the reasons given for failing to file the appeal on time to be plausible/reasonable and ultimately therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the delay herein has sufficiently been explained to the satisfaction of this Court,” said the court.
It directed her to file the intended appeal within 30 days from the date of the ruling, failure to which the orders granted would lapse.
Mrs Kamotho had opposed the application, stating that granting her daughter the orders would greatly prejudice her as Ms Nyokabi intends to keep the matter in court for as long as it takes, so as to frustrate her right to enjoy quiet possession of the home.
'Refused to leave the premises'
John Joseph Kamotho, the late former Cabinet Minister and one-time powerful Kanu secretary-general.
Photo credit: File | Nation
The widow moved to court in 2024 seeking an order to evict Ms Nyokabi from the property and to restrain her from trespassing. She then instructed auctioneers to evict her with the assistance of officers from Spring Valley Police Station.
Mrs Kamotho was one of the administrators of the estate of her late husband and the succession court had on March 8, 2024 vested the net estate and the matrimonial home to her as a tenant for life, and thereafter to her children as tenants in common in equal shares.
She stated that following the said confirmation, she issued a notice to her daughter to vacate the home but that she refused to leave the premises, despite having unsuccessfully protested the confirmation of the grant.
The widow contended that her daughter had unrepentantly abused her and without her prior consent, had commenced material repairs on the matrimonial home in a bid to provoke her.
She told the court that her daughter had an alternative home and means to afford decent living elsewhere, but had insisted on continually and illegally occupying her matrimonial property.
She further affirmed that her daughter was a well-established practicing advocate of 21 years standing, and the proprietor of Nyokabi Kamotho Legal Consultancy Limited, and that no prejudice would be suffered if she was evicted.
The daughter opposed the case arguing that although the certificate of confirmation of grant vested her mother with a life interest over the property, the same did not equate to exclusive possession and “does not grant her authority to exclude other lawful beneficiaries or administrators.”
She argued that she was a co-administrator and a rightful beneficiary of the estate, and was entitled to occupy the family home in harmony with the terms of the grant and that her mother’s attempt to evict her was contrary to the principles of family property and inheritance law.
She said the properties were family homes intended for the benefit of all beneficiaries during her mother’s lifetime and “she cannot lawfully use the life interest given to her by the court to exclude other family members.”
Ms Nyokabi stated that she did not have an alternative abode or the financial means to afford a decent living elsewhere because her limited resources had been depleted. She further claimed she faced financial hardships that led to her being auctioned.
