From Kibor to Karume: When wealth becomes a family battle after death

On Tuesday, the Environment and Lands Court in Eldoret confirmed Kibor’s youngest wife, Eunita Kibor, as the executor of his estate, estimated at more than Ksh.3 billion.

Justice Emmanuel Washe ruled that Eunita was to execute the estate with the assistance of Kibor’s former lawyer, Jonah Bundotich.

The decision followed a dispute in which more than 16 of Kibor’s children had challenged Eunita’s position, including allegations that a will used to distribute the estate was forged. Those allegations form part of the court dispute and have not been established as fact.

The judge told Kibor's children that if they were dissatisfied with Eunita’s position, they could pursue the legal procedure for replacing an executor.

Kibor’s case is only one example of a succession dispute involving a prominent Kenyan family playing out in court.

Over the years, similar battles have involved multiple families, different generations, contested wills, questions over beneficiaries, the administration of estates and, in some cases, disputes over individual properties.

The pattern raises a broader question: how much of the conflict that follows a death can actually be reduced by planning before death?

Advocate Dianah Mureithi, who specialises in matters touching on estate and legacy planning, says estate planning is fundamentally about preparing for two risks: death and incapacity.

“Estate planning basically is planning for how your assets would be administered or managed post your death,” Mureithi says.

She says that estate planning should not be viewed as something reserved for people with millions or billions of shillings.

“Anyone 24 years old, 82 years old, billionaire, poor, married, unmarried can die and can become mentally incapacitated,” she says, explaining that the need for planning is therefore about risk rather than wealth.

That distinction becomes important when looking at some of Kenya’s most publicised succession disputes.

The estate of businessman and former Cabinet Minister Njenga Karume is one example of a succession battle that eventually moved away from prolonged litigation towards mediation.

Karume’s family spent years in a public dispute over the management of his multi-billion-shilling estate. In 2018, the family and estate trustees were said to have reached an agreement after deciding to freeze the court process and pursue mediation.

The estate was then valued at about KSh17.8 billion, with representatives saying it had debts of approximately Ksh2.5 billion, including amounts owed to KRA, banks, creditors and contractors. The agreement included selling some properties to settle the debts.

The Karume case illustrates another dimension of succession: administering an estate is not simply about determining who inherits property. There can also be debts, businesses, income-generating assets and decisions about how those assets should be managed.

Mureithi distinguishes between estate planning and what she calls legacy planning.

While estate planning deals with assets and how they are administered, legacy planning can also involve a person's values, vision and wishes for how their wealth should be used by future generations.

For example, she says a person may establish a trust with conditions around education or other objectives they want their beneficiaries to fulfil.

That distinction is particularly relevant for families whose wealth includes operating businesses rather than simply houses, land or bank accounts.

The late politician John Keen provides another example of why having a plan does not necessarily eliminate disputes.

Keen died in 2016 after preparing a detailed will dated December 2, 2015. He appointed four executors, including Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola, lawyer Maina Wachira and two of his children.

Yet his family became embroiled in a prolonged dispute over an estate estimated at more than Ksh.13 billion.

In 2023, members of different branches of the family were contesting ownership and management of property in Karen. Lenaola had resigned as an executor while Wachira had died, leaving the estate with further complications around its administration.

The case demonstrates that a will is not necessarily a guarantee that a family will never disagree.

It also highlights the importance of considering who will administer an estate and whether the arrangements remain workable after the death of the person who made the will.

Mureithi says one of the mistakes people make is assuming that simply having a will means everything is taken care of.

The document must identify assets with sufficient specificity, she says, while the legal requirements for executing a valid will must also be followed.

She gives the example of identifying land by a vague description rather than by the relevant title or parcel details.

She also warns against treating will-writing as an informal exercise between friends without understanding the legal requirements governing witnesses and execution.

Under Kenyan law, succession legislation governs inheritance and administration of deceased estates. The Kenya Law Reform Commission has previously identified the Law of Succession Act as the legislation governing matters including inheritance, administration of estates, beneficiaries and the process of administering and distributing a deceased person's estate.

Another case that illustrates the complexity of succession is that of former nominated MP Mark Too.

Too died in 2016 without a will, according to Citizen Digital, leaving behind 19 farms spread across Uasin Gishu, Nakuru, Nandi and Trans Nzoia, as well as vehicles and company shares valued at billions of shillings.

A decade later, the succession dispute remains before the Eldoret High Court.

When the case resumed in July 2026, one of Too’s widows testified about the distribution of the estate and raised concerns about the disposal of some of its assets. The proceedings have also involved disputes concerning who qualifies as a beneficiary, including DNA-related claims. The court proceedings are ongoing.

Mark Too’s case offers an illustration of the consequences of dying intestate, that is, without a will, when a person leaves behind a substantial and complicated estate.

But the succession question is not restricted to billionaires.

Some of the most important estate-planning decisions may be made long before a person considers themselves wealthy.

A young employee may sign forms at work naming a next of kin and beneficiaries for pension or insurance purposes and never revisit those decisions after marrying, having children, divorcing or accumulating more assets.

Mureithi says one of the biggest misconceptions is that a next of kin and a beneficiary are the same thing.

A “next of kin”, she explains, is not a legal term of inheritance. It is generally used by organisations for internal purposes, such as identifying whom a hospital or employer should contact.

A beneficiary, on the other hand, has a legal meaning in the relevant laws governing benefits.

She notes that pension and life insurance benefits are generally dealt with through nomination arrangements and do not simply follow the ordinary probate process for a deceased person's estate.

That distinction can become particularly important as people's financial lives become more complicated.

A person may have a home, land, shares, an investment account, pension savings, insurance, a business or digital assets while assuming that one document or one person will automatically deal with everything.

Mureithi says Kenya has several estate-planning tools, including wills, trusts, forms of nomination, powers of attorney and gifts made during a person's lifetime.

They do not serve identical purposes.

A power of attorney, for example, deals with incapacity and ceases to have effect upon the death of the person who granted it.

A trust can be used as both a succession and wealth-management tool, depending on how it is structured.

But Mureithi cautions against creating a trust simply because trusts have become popular.

“Let the object, let the form follow the objective,” she says, arguing that the appropriate estate-planning tool should depend on the person's particular circumstances and objectives.

There is also a practical lesson from the cases that have reached court: estate planning does not end with signing a document.

People's circumstances change. Assets are bought and sold. Children are born. Marriages change. Businesses expand. Executors die or become unavailable. Beneficiaries may become adults. A structure that made sense years earlier may require review.

For families with substantial wealth, the challenge can be even greater because an estate may include operating companies, land, rental properties, investments, debts and competing interests among beneficiaries.

The cases involving Kibor, Karume, Keen and Mark Too demonstrate different versions of the same problem: what happens after the wealth creator is no longer there to explain what they wanted.

In Kibor's case, the immediate question before the court has been who should administer the estate.

In Karume's case, the family ultimately turned to mediation to agree on how the estate should be managed and how debts would be dealt with.

In Keen's case, a detailed will existed, but disputes over property and the administration of the estate persisted.

And in Mark Too's case, the estate has been caught up in a succession process nearly a decade after his death, with questions around beneficiaries and the management of assets still being litigated.

Mureithi's advice is that estate planning should begin with identifying the risks and objectives rather than starting with a particular product such as a will or trust.

It is also not simply about how much money a person has.

“You have to remember the law is a safety net,” she says. “It’s not about richness or anything. It’s about risk.”