In re Estate of Njeri Karanja (Deceased) (Civil Appeal 317 of 2019) [2026] KECA 665 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal confirmed that a woman married under Kikuyu woman-to-woman custom only inherits from her own spouse's estate, not a co-wife's.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who inherits a deceased person in a woman-woman relationship under the Kikuyu Customary Law
- 2.Who are the beneficiaries of Njeri's (deceased) estate
- 3.How is the estate to be divided
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant, claiming to be a wife of Njeri's co-wife Kanuthu under a woman-to-woman marriage, could inherit from Njeri's estate
The Court found that even if the appellant was a 'wife' of Kanuthu, her inheritance right lay in Kanuthu's estate, not Njeri's; she failed to prove her claim to the required standard and belongs to Kanuthu's family tree.
The Court accepted that woman-to-woman marriage is recognised under Kikuyu customary law, protected by Article 11(1) of the Constitution and section 3(5) of the Law of Succession Act. However, that recognition did not assist the appellant: on the evidence she was married to Kanuthu, Kanuthu left her own property, and any claim she had should be pursued there. Her evidence was contradictory, insufficient and unclear, and she failed to discharge the burden of proving her entitlement to Njeri's estate.
Who are the beneficiaries of Njeri's estate
The beneficiaries are the children sired by Njeri's wives, Lydia and Mary; even if the respondent is a grandson rather than a son, he is more entitled than the appellant, who belongs to Kanuthu's lineage.
The undisputed facts were that Njeri married two women, Lydia and Mary, in woman-to-woman marriages to preserve the family line, and those women sired children regarded as the family's children. The appellant did not dispute the other children of Lydia and Mary. By contrast, the appellant's connection ran through Kanuthu, a separate co-wife with her own estate, disqualifying her from a share of Njeri's property.
Whether claims by alleged purchasers of portions of the estate should have been considered
The alleged buyers filed only affidavits, gave no evidence and were not cross-examined, so the trial Judge was right not to consider their claims.
Where a matter proceeds by viva voce evidence, a party asserting a purchase of estate property must support the claim with testimony subject to cross-examination. The alleged buyers, including John Kamande named in the memorandum of appeal, did not do so, and it was unclear whether John Kamande was the same as beneficiary Joseph Kamande. The trial Judge therefore could not be faulted for disregarding their claims.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal must reconsider and evaluate the evidence afresh and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- Woman-to-woman marriages recognised under Kikuyu customary law are recognised under the Constitution and the Law of Succession Act, and courts may receive evidence of African customary law by oral evidence or recognised treatise under Rule 64 of the Probate and Administration Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under its appellate jurisdiction (no specific provision invoked in the judgment); the appeal arises from succession proceedings under the Law of Succession Act transferred to the High Court
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer that the appeal be allowed, the High Court judgment overturned and a judgment confirming the grant in terms of her affidavit of protest dated 8th May 2017 be issued
The Court agreed entirely with the trial Judge's findings that the appellant failed to prove her claim to the estate; her claim lay, if at all, in Kanuthu's estate, not Njeri's
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
In the end, we find that the trial Judge was correct in his findings, which we are in total agreement with.
On a first appeal from the High Court, the Court of Appeal should reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses
Indeed, there is an acknowledgement that Kanuthu left behind a property, so that if indeed the appellant was a “wife” of Kanuthu, that is where she ought to inherit.
Section 3(5) of the Law of Succession Act does recognise the institution of marriage under customary law.
Issues in the judgment
#The bench listing spells the third judge's name only as 'ALI-ARONI' with no given name or initials, so the full name cannot be confirmed from the judgment itself.
The judgment refers to the trial judge's decision ambiguously as a judgment that 'appears to have been a ruling'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re Estate of Njeri Karanja (Deceased) (Civil Appeal 317 of 2019) [2026] KECA 665 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/665/eng@2026-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.