Family dispute over former Nakuru mayor's Will heads to Court of Appeal

A long-running family dispute over the authenticity of the Will of former Nakuru Mayor Joseck Thuo Ngeta is headed to the Court of Appeal after three family members challenged a High Court decision upholding the contested document.

The High Court has granted Susan Wanjiru Thuo, her son Nixon Kariuki Thuo and daughter Maureen Judy Mukami Thuo leave to appeal against the ruling that declared the Will valid. The three have been objecting to the distribution of the estate in accordance with the disputed Will.

Justice Samwel Mohochi also stayed execution of the earlier decision, effectively freezing distribution of the late mayor’s multimillion-shilling estate until the appeal is heard and determined.

“The Court makes further consequential orders that the Notice of Appeal dated 23rd July 2025 be and is hereby expunged. The Objectors to lodge a fresh Notice of Appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling. In the meantime, the Court will preserve the status quo of the estate by an order that there shall be a stay of execution of the Ruling of the Court delivered on July 17, 2025 pending hearing and determination of the Appeal at the Court of Appeal,” ruled Judge Mohochi.

The dispute centres on a Will dated February 3, 2016, whose authenticity has been questioned by some members of the family.

In a ruling delivered on July 17, 2025, Justice Julius Nang’ea dismissed objections to the Will, finding that allegations of forgery had not been proved. He granted probate with the Will annexed and allowed the executors, Harrison Ngeta and Nahashon Kabiri, to proceed with transmission of the estate.

But Susan, Nixon and Maureen challenged the decision, arguing that serious questions remained over the document, including its signatures, handwriting and the circumstances surrounding its preparation and execution.

Part of their case was based on the evidence of document examiner Emmanuel Kenga, who compared known signatures and handwriting attributed to the deceased with a copy of the disputed Will.

Kenga told the court that his examination led him to conclude that the documents appeared to have been produced by different authors. He also raised questions over some pages of the Will, saying they appeared to have been printed using different machines before being inserted into the document.

“My opinion and observation after the examination of the signatures, handwriting, and prints are based on the peculiar individual characteristics such as style of the signature, alignment, pen movement, pen lifts, pen speed, pen strokes, and free flow of ink,” he explained.

They also alleged that some property had been left out of the Will, while the document contained errors and references to property they claimed did not belong to the deceased.

Nixon further questioned the authenticity of his late father’s signature and the circumstances under which the Will was allegedly executed.

He reported the matter to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations in June 2022 and sought an investigation.

The DCI later requested the original Will from Kagucia and Company Advocates for forensic examination. The law firm, however, said it did not have the purported original.

In response to the DCI’s request on April 17, 2023, the law firm said it 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.

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

Thuo’s former driver, Robert Kavisu, told the court that the deceased had confided in him in 2020 that he had a Will and instructed him on what should happen to it after his death.

Kavisu said Thuo directed him to move the document from one vehicle to another and keep it concealed. According to him, the Will was initially wrapped in a newspaper and stapled.

When Thuo later fell ill and was taken to hospital, Kavisu said he accompanied him in an ambulance, while Susan and her son Geoffrey travelled in the Mercedes where the document had been kept.

Three days later, he said, he went to retrieve the document and found that the newspaper wrapping was gone and the document was instead inside an envelope.

Kavisu said he eventually handed the Will to Nixon in the presence of his brothers, following the late mayor’s instructions. He also told the court that Thuo had never mentioned having other copies.

The Will became the centre of the family dispute following Thuo’s death in 2021. He was survived by two widows, Mary Wanjiru, who is deceased, and Susan Wanjiru, as well as four sons and a daughter.

In August 2022, Harrison Ngeta and Nahashon Kabiri moved to the High Court in Nakuru seeking probate of the Will. They said they were the deceased’s nephews and had been appointed executors under the document.

Susan, Nixon and Maureen opposed the petition, alleging that the Will was forged and raising questions over the distribution of the estate and the circumstances surrounding its preparation.

The court later summoned advocate Kagucia to explain his role in preparing the Will.

Kagucia told the court that Thuo had been his friend and client since 1990 and had instructed him to prepare the document. He said the process took about two years because of the size and complexity of the estate.

According to the lawyer, Thuo executed the Will on February 3, 2016, in his presence and that of other witnesses.

Kagucia said he prepared three bound copies, with the deceased expected to keep copies at Barclays Bank while he retained a certified copy in his file. He maintained that the copies were identical counterparts of the same original document.

His evidence was central to Justice Nang’ea’s decision to reject the forgery claims. The judge found no credible evidence of fraud and accepted the evidence of Kagucia, the attesting witnesses and the executors.

The court also rejected the document examiner’s opinion, finding it less persuasive when weighed against the evidence presented by the advocate and other witnesses.

Justice Nang’ea consequently declared the Will valid and allowed the executors to proceed with administration of the estate.

Susan, her son and daughter, however, sought leave to appeal and an order stopping distribution of the estate pending determination of their challenge.

They argued that distributing the estate before the appeal was heard could leave them without an effective remedy.

The executors opposed the application, saying the dispute had already dragged on for years and that further delays would increase the financial burden on the estate. They also argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the objectors had filed a Notice of Appeal without first obtaining leave.

Justice Mohochi rejected that argument.

He noted that, unlike ordinary civil proceedings, a party in succession proceedings does not have an automatic right to appeal a High Court decision to the Court of Appeal. Leave must first be obtained from the High Court or, if refused, from 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 leave.

He found that the proposed appeal raised arguable...