A lawyer’s testimony in the succession battle for the estate of former Nakuru mayor Joseck Thuo Ngeta has unmasked substantial wealth, a contested Will and family discord.
According to John Kagucia, the lawyer who drafted Thuo’s Will, it took two years to identify and confirm the properties that make up the tycoon’s Sh1 billion estate.
Thuo, who passed away in December 2021 at the age of 88, left behind a vast estate distributed among two wives and five children.
The contested Will covers properties such as Abbey Resort in Nakuru, Abbey House in Nairobi, commercial buildings in Nakuru, and prime land in Nakuru, Gilgil, Murang’a and Nairobi.
Mr Kagucia told the court that the former mayor approached him in 2014 to draw a Will for his estate. It however wasn’t until February 3, 2016, that the lawyer sat to write the document after completing the listing of the property.
“In 2014, the Mr Thuo approached me with instructions to draw a Will for his estate and I rendered my advice. However, it took two years to complete listing his property,” said Mr Kagucia.
The lawyer said that upon the completion of the property listing exercise, Mr Thuo presented to him the names of all his children in preparation for the writing of the Will.
When asked why he took such a long time to come up with the Will during cross examination, Mr Kagucia said it was due to the large size of the estate.
“As a law firm, we demanded evidence from our clients in order to establish that the property listed exists. Essentially my client’s estate was large in size,” said Mr Kagucia.
The lawyer described Thuo as a wealthy man who was a successful businessman besides being a civic leader.
He told the court that after he drew the Will, he translated it into the Kikuyu language, which Thuo was most comfortable with.
The Will was attested by two witnesses according to the lawyer, who added that Thuo signed each of the three copies of the Will and certified the contents to be true.
“On February 22, 2016, I released two copies for safe keeping and retained the primary copy of the Will counterpart, “ said Mr Kagucia.
Thuo died on December 27, 2021 at Mater Hospital and was survived by two wives, Mary Wanjiru Thuo and Susan Wanjiru Thuo , and five children—James Ngeta, Geoffrey Ngeta, Eric Kimondo, Nixon Kariuki and Judy Mukami.
Susan and her two children, Nixon and Judy, have filed objections to the petition for grant of execution of the Will filed by Mr Waiharo Harison Ngeta and Nahashon Mahugu Kibiri, who were named the executors of the will.
The three family members said they suspect the Will was manipulated. They based their argument on the claims of Thuo’s driver Robert Kavisu, who the former mayor had allegedly entrusted with the document, that it had been interfered with.
Mr Kavisu claimed in court that Thuo used to move around with the document in the vehicle had asked him to hand it over to his son Nixon three days after his death.
He told the court that when he went to get the document, he found it had been misplaced and its condition interfered with, which raised suspicions that someone had tampered with it.
The objectors further questioned why the Will had left out some properties that belonged to Thuo. They listed a number of assets left out in the will, including prime parcels of land, some with developments, in Gilgil, Kampi ya Moto and Elementaita, and shares in Safaricom and the Embakasi Ranching Company.
Also not captured in the Will, the three family members said, was cash held in different bank accounts, including Equity, Bank of Africa, Barclays, Unaitas and NCBA as well as the benefits from the National Social Security Fund.
The former mayor's son James admitted to knowing that the properties belonged to his father. However, while defending the Will, he said it had a provision allowing the executors to take charge of the properties that had not been listed in the will.
“I am aware that Mzee left out some of the assets from the Will, but I do not see any problem with that because they were his and he had the discretion to do as he wished. Furthermore, there was a provision in the Will where he has allowed the executors of the Will to take charge of the property that was not provided for in the Will,” James said during cross examination.
“There was no purported original Will as all the three documents are counterparts of each other,” said Mr Kagucia.
