High Court Rejects Dependency Claims Against the Estate of the Late Honourable Simeon Nyachae
Key Takeaway
In a recent decision, the High Court reaffirmed the strict evidentiary threshold required to establish spousal and dependant status under Kenyan succession law. The Court dismissed claims brought against the Estate of the late Honourable Simeon Nyachae, holding that neither marriage nor dependency had been proven, and departed from the general rule on costs by awarding costs against the unsuccessful applicants.
Background
A suit was filed against the Estate of the late Honourable Simeon Nyachae (the Estate), valued in excess of Kenya Shillings Two Billion, by a woman and her three children. The applicants sought to be recognised as dependants of the Deceased and, consequently, beneficiaries of the Estate under the Law of Succession Act.
The applicants’ case was premised on allegations that the woman was a wife of the Deceased and that her children qualified as dependants, either as biological children or by virtue of having been maintained by the Deceased during his lifetime.
The Estate opposed the application, disputing both the existence of a marriage and the alleged dependency of the children.
Issues for Determination
The High Court was called upon to determine two principal issues:
1.Whether the applicant was a wife of the late Honourable Simeon Nyachae, whether under customary law or otherwise, and therefore a dependant for purposes of succession; and
2.Whether the applicant’s children qualified as dependants of the Deceased within the meaning of the Law of Succession Act.
The Court’s Decision
The Court found entirely in favour of the Estate and dismissed the application.
In its judgment, the Court held that the applicant had failed to establish the existence of a valid marriage between herself and the Deceased. The Court emphasised that claims of marriage, particularly customary marriages, must be supported by clear, cogent and credible evidence.
The Court further held that the applicant’s children were neither biological children of the Deceased nor dependants under the Law of Succession Act. The evidence before the Court did not demonstrate that the Deceased had maintained the children during his lifetime or assumed parental responsibility for them in a manner recognised by law.
Costs
In a notable departure from the general principle that parties in family and succession matters ordinarily bear their own costs, the Court awarded costs to the Estate. The Court observed that the circumstances of the case justified such a departure, signalling judicial disapproval of unmeritorious claims brought against estates.
Key Implications
This decision underscores several important principles:
• Dependency and spousal status must be strictly proven in succession proceedings.
• Mere assertions of marriage or dependency, without credible evidence, are insufficient.
• Courts may award costs against unsuccessful applicants in succession disputes where circumstances warrant.
• Estates, particularly high-value estates, are entitled to robust protection from speculative or unsupported claims.
Conclusion
The ruling provides welcome clarity on the evidentiary standards applicable to dependency claims and reinforces the courts’ willingness to safeguard estates against unsubstantiated litigation. Parties contemplating succession claims must ensure their cases are grounded in law and supported by compelling evidence.
This alert serves the purpose of general guidance and is not intended to constitute specific legal advice. For tailored advice, please contact our Partner at George.Muchiri@CMS-DI.com.
Contributors
Sarah Mueni - Associate, Dispute Resolution
