Disputed Will stalls ex-mayor's estate payout as kin appeal

Family feud over former Nakuru mayor’s estate deepens over a disputed Will. [Courtesy]

What should have been a family inheritance has turned into a bitter legal battle, with a disputed Will, allegations of forgery and accusations of exclusion threatening to deepen divisions among the relatives of former Nakuru Mayor Joseck Thuo Ngeta.

Years after his death, the fight over his multimillion-shilling estate remains unresolved, with family members divided over who should inherit the property, who should manage it and whether the document guiding its distribution is genuine.

The dispute, which has played out in court and split into the management of the family’s business interests, is now headed to the Court of Appeal after three relatives challenged a High Court decision that upheld the contested Will.

Susan Wanjiru Thuo, her son Nixon Kariuki Thuo and daughter Maureen Judy Mukami Thuo want the appellate court to reconsider the ruling by Justice Julius Nangea on July 17, 2025, who found that claims of forgery had not been proved.

The latest development has temporarily halted the distribution of the estate, with the court ordering that the existing position be maintained pending the determination of the appeal.

The late Nakuru Mayor, Joseck Thuo. [File, Standard]

For Susan, however, the dispute goes beyond legal arguments over signatures, documents and inheritance. It is also a struggle over access to property she says she helped acquire with her late husband and the support she believes she should continue receiving from the family estate.

In 2024, tensions came to the surface at Abbey Resort in Nakuru, one of the properties caught up in the dispute, when Susan accused some family members of blocking her from accessing the premises. The dispute over the management of the resort is still in court.

She claimed that an employee she had appointed to oversee operations at the resort was assaulted and forced out, prompting a report to Bondeni Police Station.

During a visit to the property, The Standard witnessed a heated exchange involving some of the beneficiaries.

Susan, accompanied by Nixon, had gone to the resort seeking answers over the alleged assault of a lady she said she had appointed to oversee the business in her capacity as a shareholder.

In an emotional account, Susan said she had been left struggling financially, alongside her child with a disability, despite believing that she was entitled to benefit from the estate.

“I am suffering and I have a disabled child who is also suffering. They have blocked me from accessing my property. I don't even get money for upkeep for both of us, and while Mzee was alive he used to support us,” she said.

“I get nothing from here despite being my husband's property, which we acquired together,” she added.

The court battle over the estate formally gathered pace in August 2022, when Harrison Ngeta and Nahashon Kabiri, who described themselves as the deceased's nephews, petitioned the High Court in Nakuru for probate of a Will dated February 3, 2016.

They said they had been appointed executors under the document and wanted to proceed with administering the estate.

But Susan, Nixon and Maureen opposed the petition, arguing that the Will was forged and questioning how it had been prepared and executed.

They also claimed that some properties had been left out, while other assets mentioned in the document did not belong to the deceased.

Nixon went further, alleging that his brother Geoffrey, stepbrothers and cousins had colluded to alter the Will.

The accusations were denied by Harrison, Nahashon, James Ngeta, Geoffrey Ngeta and Erick Kimondo, who maintained that the document was genuine.

As the case unfolded, the court heard competing accounts of how the Will had been prepared, handled and preserved.

Advocate John Kagucia, who testified that he had known Thuo as both a friend and client since 1990, told the court that he prepared the Will on the deceased's instructions.

He said the process took about two years because of the size and complexity of the estate.

The late Nakuru Mayor, Joseck Thuo. [File, Standard]

According to Kagucia, Thuo signed the document on February 3, 2016, in his presence and that of other witnesses.

The advocate said three bound copies were prepared for the deceased, who was expected to keep them at Barclays Bank, while he retained a certified copy in his office file.

He maintained that the copies contained identical information and were counterparts of the same original document.

Kagucia also told the court that he later confirmed the Will's authenticity when family members visited his office seeking verification.

On July 17, 2025, Justice Nangea ruled that the allegations of forgery had not been proved and rejected the objection to the Will, allowing the executors to proceed with administering the estate.

The decision, however, did not end the dispute.

Those challenging the Will maintained that serious questions remained unanswered, particularly over the signatures, handwriting and preparation of some pages.

They relied on the testimony of document examiner Emmanuel Karisa, who said a comparison of known signatures and handwriting attributed to the deceased with a copy of the disputed Will suggested that they had been produced by different authors.

Karisa also questioned some pages, saying they appeared to have been printed using different machines before being inserted into the document.

Nixon had reported his concerns about his father's signature to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations in June 2022, seeking an investigation into the document.

The DCI later wrote to Kagucia and Company Advocates requesting the original Will for examination. Investigators also sought access to copies through the court, but their application was declined.

The law firm, in response to the request by the DCI on April 17, 2023, said they did not have the purported original Will.

‘About your letter dated April 4, 2023, I would advise that we do not have the purported original Will. Our client collected all counterparts of the Will on February 22, 2026,” read the response in part.

Kagucia, however, appeared in court on February 2, 2024 produced a copy he said he had retained in his office.

The objectors (Susan, her son and daughter) argued that the failure to subject the document to forensic examination left crucial questions unresolved.

The court, however, gave greater weight to Kagucia's testimony, the evidence of witnesses who attested to the Will and the executors' account than to the document examiner's opinion.

Another account came from Thuo's former driver, Robert Kavisu, who told the court that his employer had confided in him in 2020 that he had a Will and given him instructions on how to handle it after his death.

Kavisu said Thuo instructed him to move the document between vehicles and keep it hidden. According to his testimony, it was wrapped in a newspaper and stapled.

When Thuo later fell ill, Kavisu accompanied him to hospital in an ambulance, while Susan and Geoffrey travelled in the Mercedes in which the document had been kept.

Three days later, Kavisu said he retrieved the document and discovered that the newspaper wrapping was missing and the Will had been placed inside an envelope.

He eventually handed it to Nixon in the presence of his brothers, saying he was following the deceased's instructions.

Kavisu also told the court that Thuo had never mentioned the existence of other copies of the Will, raising further questions for the objectors about the different versions discussed during the proceedings.

Following the July 2025 ruling, Susan, Nixon and Maureen sought permission to appeal and asked the court to stop the transfer of the estate until their challenge was heard.

They argued that if the properties were distributed before the appeal was determined, it could become difficult to obtain an effective remedy should the Will eventually be found invalid.

The executors opposed the application, saying the dispute had dragged on for years and further delays would increase the financial liabilities associated with the estate.

They also argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the objectors had filed a Notice of Appeal without first obtaining leave.

In his ruling, Justice Samwel Mohochi noted that appeals in succession matters require permission from the High Court or, where that permission is refused, the Court of Appeal.

Although the initial Notice of Appeal was defective because it had been filed without leave, the judge found that this did not prevent the court from considering the application for permission to appeal.

Justice Mohochi held that the proposed appeal raised arguable issues, particularly the challenge to the Will's authenticity and the complaint that the document had not been subjected to forensic examination.

He was careful to clarify that finding an appeal arguable did not mean it would necessarily succeed.

The judge also noted that the applicants had acted promptly, filing their application 11 days after the July 17, 2025 ruling.

On the request to stop distribution, he found that transferring the properties before the appeal was heard could undermine the applicants' right to challenge the decision.

He therefore ordered that the status quo be maintained and stayed execution of the earlier ruling pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

The earlier Notice of Appeal, dated July 23, 2025, was struck out because it had been filed without the required leave. The applicants were given 14 days to file a fresh notice, subject to the prescribed requirements for appealing.

For now, the estate remains at the centre of a family dispute that has endured for years, with its distribution on hold as the three relatives prepare to challenge the decision upholding the Will.

Susan, her son and daughter have since filed another notice of appeal in the High Court in Nakuru.

[e-mail]