Administrators accused of fraud in obtaining Letters of Administration for late Joseph Waweru Ng'ang'a's estate

The dispute follows an application seeking the revocation of a Grant of Letters of Administration issued to Mary Wangui Waweru, Benson Ng’ang’a Waweru and Charles Ndung’u Waweru and confirmed on January 28, 2016.

The applicants George Njuguna Kelly, Dennis Lemayan Kelly and the estate of the late Humphrey Ng’ang’a Kelly claim they are children and beneficiaries of Ng’ang’a and allege that they were deliberately excluded from the succession proceedings.

Through a supplementary affidavit, George Njuguna Kelly accuses the administrators of concealing material information from the court and obtaining the grant through fraudulent means.

Kelly disputes an assertion by Benson Ng’ang’a that the applicants were unknown to the deceased’s family until 2023. He points to a police occurrence book entry from 2016, which he says records a report made against the applicants at Kitale Police Station.

According to Kelly, the existence of the report contradicts the administrators’ claim that they had never known or interacted with the applicants before November 2023.

The applicants have also challenged the validity of the chief’s letter used in initiating the succession proceedings. They contend that it was issued by a chief who did not have jurisdiction over the area where the deceased was domiciled at the time of his death.

They further allege that the succession proceedings failed to disclose the existence of another family and beneficiaries who were entitled to participate in the administration of the estate.

Another disputed issue is the deceased’s place of death. The applicants contend that the Gazette Notice published in connection with the succession cause contained an incorrect statement that Ng’ang’a died in Mnagei Location. The administrators, however, maintain that the deceased died at MP Shah Hospital in Nairobi.

At the heart of the case is an unresolved dispute over whether the applicants are biological children of the deceased.

Benson Ng’ang’a, in a replying affidavit, categorically denies that the applicants were children, stepbrothers or half brothers of the deceased’s known children.

He says the deceased was married to Mary Wangui Waweru in 1968 and that the marriage was his only marriage. He further states that the deceased never acknowledged, maintained or assumed parental responsibility over the applicants.

The administrators argue that the applicants have not produced sufficient evidence establishing either paternity or dependency. They cite the absence of documents such as birth certificates naming the deceased, school-fee records, medical records or correspondence demonstrating a parent child relationship.

They also rely on the fact that the applicants were not listed in the funeral programme and, according to their affidavit, did not participate in the deceased’s family life or burial arrangements.

Kelly disputes this account and says the applicants have previously sought DNA testing to resolve the paternity question.

He alleges that the administrators refused to subject themselves to DNA testing despite correspondence exchanged by the parties in October 2024.

The applicants argue that the refusal is significant because the administrators themselves have placed paternity at the centre of their opposition to the succession claim.

The parties have also taken opposing positions on the legal significance of the chief’s introductory letter.

The applicants argue that the letter should have come from the chief responsible for the area in which the deceased was domiciled and describe the requirement as mandatory in succession proceedings.

The administrators reject that interpretation. Benson maintains that a chief’s letter is an evidentiary and administrative document intended to assist the court in identifying survivors and dependants, rather than a document conferring jurisdiction on the succession court.

He further argues that any defect in the letter would not, by itself, justify revocation of the grant unless fraud, concealment of material facts or another statutory ground under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act is established.

The applicants have also alleged that Benson caused their arrest and detention.

Benson denies the allegation and describes it as malicious and unsupported, arguing that the applicants had not produced police records, an occurrence book extract or charge sheet to substantiate their claim.

Kelly has responded by annexing what he describes as a copy of an occurrence-book entry showing that Benson made a report against the applicants at Kitale Police Station in November 2016.

The significance of that record remains a matter for the court to determined

The administrators have further challenged the timing of the application, arguing that the grant was issued and confirmed in 2016 and that the applicants waited several years before seeking its revocation.

Benson describes the delay as unexplained and argues that it undermines the applicants’ claim.

The applicants, however, maintain that the grant was obtained through concealment of their alleged status as beneficiaries and ask the court to intervene notwithstanding the passage of time.

The applicants are asking the court to revoke or annul the grant and to restrain the administrators from dealing with the estate pending determination of the dispute.

They have also sought orders inhibiting dealings with properties listed in the confirmed grant, cancellation of entries made pursuant to the grant, preservation of rental and other estate income, and restrictions on withdrawals or transfers from bank accounts associated with the estate.

The administrators oppose the application and want it dismissed with costs, maintaining that the grant was lawfully obtained, that all genuine beneficiaries were disclosed and that the applicants have failed to establish the legal basis for revocation.