Thread by @milleniallawyer

In 2005, an old man with the help of his walking stick walked into Nairobi Market's Barclays Bank with a bag full of cash, probably millions. He was all alone and it was end month. He probably had cash collected from his many rentals.
That man was Gerishon Kamau Kirima

Welcome to #LawSchoolKe as we tall about death with and without wills and the trouble that follows. Basically, succession planning

If the case of the late Kirima was a road, it would be a winding road that never seems to have an end in sight. So much so that Jutsice Lenaola when asked to decide on an issue touching on a company by the name Kirima and Sons, he restrained himself by stating that

"...the issues surrounding Kirima and Sons Ltd are so convoluted as to make it difficult for me to make a specific order in this cause touching on it"

At his time of death,Kirima was a multi millionaire who had very little education but had a knack for business and a nose for smelling out good opportunity. He was a carpenter by vocation, working in Bahati and Kaloleni while at the Royal College as well, now known as @uonbi

His real riches though came from his entry into meat and real estate business. He was so fabulously wealthy that in 1967, he bought 500 acres from Italian Domenico Masi in Nairobi. Only Jomo Kenyatta and his family had managed to buy such land within Nairobi.

In the same year he added 108 acres and a further 472 acres. His business empire was massive and he soon became one of Independent Kenya's wealthiest sons.

The Kirima succession debacle began after he died in 2010 in south Africa and it involved his three wives and their children. His first wife had passed away, his second wife was estranged and his third wife was engaged in battles with stepchildren

The first question after death was, did GKK die with a will or without a will? In court, three documents were produced. A will dated 10th September, 2010, another will dated 20th July, 2006 and a codicil dated 6th May 2008. The two wills appointed different executors.

In court, it was declared that there was a first will dated 20th July, 2006 and a council dated 6th May, 2008. What is a codicil you ask? It is a supplement to a will which seeks to explain it,rewrite it,or revoke it,ie the will.
This first will was called the Kahari Will.

The second will was called the London Will which was drawn by the firm of Rachier and Amolo Advocates, where Ambrose Rachier is a partner. The will was apparently drawn in London where Mr. Kirima had been hospitalised.

The Kahari will was fought on the basis that it favoured the third home ie the young wife, and that Kirima had been imprisoned in his home and was not a free agent with capacity to make the will. In this case, the court provided guidance on what will constitute a valid will

First, the testator(owner of the will) must have capacity to prepare a will, but he must also know and approve the contents of this will. That knowledge is seen if he is aware of the contents of the will and understands the terms.

Since evidence pointed to the fact that the will was executed on 20th July, 2006 at Kirima's office along Mokhtar Daddah street and that he wasn't badly ill at the time, the ground of challenge failed as it was clear he wasn't of unsound mind or that he acted without independence

However, the Codicil was prepared in 2008, and it had drastically altered the original will and bequeathed property to his then wife.Furthermore, evidence showed that Kirima's children had been denied access to his home and he was very sickly in 2008. Justice Lenaola concluded...

That he was not of such a mind as to have voluntarily executed the codicil and a power of attorney that had been produced. Therefore the Kahari will and codicil were declared invalid.

Another reason was on the question of execution of the will. A will must have witnesses who are present when the Testator made it. The two witnesses gave evidence that Kirima called them and asked them to witness him sign a document but they only saw him sign one page of the will

The problem was that the will had more than one signature yet they only signed on one page , were they present when the other pages were signed?
It is law that if a witness leaves the room before the testator completes his signature the attestation/witnessing will be invalid.

For those reasons, the Kahari will was declared invalid even though it had elements that could have caused it to be valid.
I will prepare another thread on the London will and the decision of the court as this was truly a convoluted case and I do not wish to bore you 😂😂😂

For any queries on succession planning or matters, please feel free to send those queries to [e-mail]

Watch out for part 2