Court halts sale of late lawyer Paul Gicheru's land, heir's rights upheld

The High Court has blocked the sale of a prime Eldoret property belonging to the estate of the late lawyer Paul Gicheru, reigniting a succession battle over the estate of the man once linked to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Justice Helene Namisi of Milimani High Court yesterday set aside proceedings conducted on July 31, 2024, revoked a Further Partial Confirmed Grant, and issued an injunction restraining the estate’s administrators from selling or otherwise dealing with Eldoret Municipality/Block 13/542 pending determination of an objection filed by one of the deceased’s sons, Ian Njoroge.

Gicheru, a senior advocate of the High Court of Kenya, became internationally known after facing proceedings at the ICC over alleged interference with prosecution witnesses in the 2007–2008 post-election violence cases.

He died intestate in September 2022 before the conclusion of the ICC case.

The succession dispute pits the deceased’s widow, Ruth Nyambura Wokabi, and her sons Allan Njoroge Gicheru and Alvin Kamau Gicheru, who are administrators of the estate, against Ian Njoroge, who claims to be his son and asserts ownership of the Eldoret property.

While Ms Nyambura describes Mr Njoroge, 26, as a stranger because he was not named in Gicheru's funeral programme, Mr Njoroge relies on his birth certificate naming Gicheru as his father to support his claim.

Mr Njoroge also asserts that Gicheru gifted him the land during his lifetime, while Nyambura seeks its sale to fund her two sons’ university education in the United Kingdom.

“The respondent’s position is the immediate need for cash for education. The applicant’s position is permanent loss of asset,” the court observed.

In her ruling, Justice Namisi set aside earlier court orders allowing the sale of the property, describing the process as unfair and procedurally flawed.

“The proceedings of July 31, 2024, were conducted in breach of the rules of natural justice,” the judge said, noting that the sale authorisation was “an ex-parte order disguised as an inter partes ruling, obtained without due notice to the affected party.”

The judge found that Mr Njoroge had been excluded from proceedings leading to the grant.

“The crux of the Applicant’s grievance is that he was condemned unheard. The principle of Audi Alteram Partem is the bedrock of natural justice and a constitutional imperative under Article 50(1) of the Constitution,” Justice Namisi ruled.

The court noted that Njoroge had been served and attended court on July 22 and July 29, 2024, but the matter was not called on the latter date as the file was “in chambers.” Two days later, the court proceeded in his absence.

“Crucially, there is no evidence on record—no affidavit of service, no hearing notice, demonstrating that Njoronge was notified that the matter had been moved to July 31, 2024,” Justice Namisi said, describing the proceedings as an ambush.

The contested Eldoret property forms part of Gicheru’s broader estate, which includes shares in Cedar Dairies Farm Ltd, Malik Development Ltd, and a motor vehicle. An earlier Partial Certificate of Confirmation of Grant issued on April 4, 2024, had distributed undisputed assets but deliberately excluded the Eldoret land.

“Confirming a grant for a disputed asset before resolving the objection is procedural absurdity. It puts the cart before the horse,” the court ruled, voiding the July grant.

Ian Njoroge maintained that the Eldoret property was specifically promised to him by his father and produced a birth certificate naming Paul Gicheru Njoroge as his father, which the court accepted as prima facie evidence of paternity.

“In law, a funeral programme is a social document, not a legal one. It cannot override a statutory document like a birth certificate,” Justice Namisi ruled, rejecting the widow and her two sons’ argument.

The respondents had argued that selling the property was necessary to raise school fees for beneficiaries studying in the United Kingdom.

The court, however, noted that the beneficiaries were adults and that the estate had other undisputed assets.

“A prudent administrator should liquidate undisputed assets first. The fixation on selling the disputed asset raises questions of good faith,” the judge said, warning that selling the land would cause irreparable harm.

“Land is unique. If Block 13/542 is sold to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, it is gone forever.”