Family of deceased businesswoman loses property 31 years after her demise
Crime and Justice
By
Daniel Chege
| Sep 10, 2026
The beneficiaries of the estate of a deceased businesswoman have suffered a setback after a court in Nakuru ruled that a Sh30 million property it claimed is not available for distribution.
Judge Joseph Sergon ruled that evidence placed before him did not prove that the property was part of the assets of the deceased, Miriam Odhiambo, who died on October 11, 1995.
The judge thus ruled that the property did not form part of Miriam’s estate and ordered that the same be excluded from estate distribution in the succession proceedings.
“The administrators of the estate are granted leave to within 30 days, amend the summons for confirmation of grant and exclude the subject property from the distribution,” ruled Sergon.
READ MORE
New submarine cable puts Kenya's Coast on digital growth path
Kenya moves towards AI policy as new report shows growing capabilities and risks
Retirees boost demand for gated communities amid housing supply imbalance
Lawyer questions KPA boss's stay in office after expiry of term
Ruto faces fuel price dilemma as oil crosses $110 per barrel over Iran-US war
Making mortgages work for Kenyans: A practical path through partnerships and patient capital
Africa pushes for consolidated air market to boost connectivity
Chaka property boom gathers pace as investors eye Nyeri's next investment hub
How newsroom error birthed global AI platform
River Camp Mara revamp scales sustainable tourism and heritage
According to Sergon, evidence submitted by Miriam’s kin, Hellen Adhiambo and Charles Odhiambo was insufficient for the court to conclusively find that the property belonged to the deceased.
“It follows that, on the material presently before the Court, the property has not been proved to belong to the deceased’s estate and it is therefore unavailable for distribution,” ruled the judge.
The judge noted that the official search revealed that the registered proprietor of the property was Oscar Otieno and not Miriam. Otieno was issued with the title deed on May 29, 2013.
He ruled that Miriam’s family claim that Otieno’s title was fraudulently obtained remained a contested allegation which was not conclusively established in the succession case.
The judge insisted that his court had no jurisdiction to examine the title deed possessed by Otieno in a bid to prove if it was genuine or fraudulently obtained.
“The allegation of fraud against Otieno is therefore a matter requiring proof. The burden rests upon the party alleging fraud to establish the allegation by evidence before the Environment and Land Court,” he ruled.
He maintained that his court had the jurisdiction to deal with probate through identification, administration and distribution of the estate of a deceased person.
Further the court noted that the land ownership was also contested by one Esther Waithira, who claimed she had purchased the land from Otieno.
Sergon deposed that the court could not conclusively determine whether Waithira, who had established a genuine interest on the land, had acquired a legal title deed.
However, the judge insisted that it could not ignore Waithira’s claim, after she filed evidence showing that she had paid a deposit of Sh18 million towards purchase of the land.
“Whether that transaction validly transferred the title or an enforceable interest in the land is a matter that may require determination in the land court,” he said.
Owing to the complication in the land ownership; Waithira’s claim, Otieno’s title deed validity and Miriam’s stake in the land, Sergon said it would be prudent if the land is excluded from distribution.
Miriam’s family, however, got reprieve when the judge declined to revoke the grant of letters issued to Hellen and Charles on February 26, 2024.
“The court consequently declines to revoke the entire grant and will hear and determine the succession case for the undisputed assets of the estate,” the judge ruled.
In the case, Hellen and Charles challenged Otieno’s title deed, saying he could not have acquired it without a succession case.
Otieno defended his title deed, while Waithira said she had entered an agreement to buy the property and even paid Sh18 million.
The case will be mentioned on October 6, for further directions.