Blood is thicker than Water, Yeah Right

If you have been following the news lately, you will know that inheritance battles of various prominent families in our country have been brought before the court because of one reason or another. I would like to talk especially about the estate of Peter Mondo who died 38 years ago leaving behind a kshs 500 million estate. (The Standard on Saturday, March 12th 2016) At the time he died, there was no dispute as to who would be allowed a portion of his estate, because the man  died intestate (the fancy word lawyers use to mean he died before he could make a will). This is because according to the Law of Succession at the time, and even now, the estate of a person who died intestate, was divided according to the customary laws of the deceased person. This man was from the Kikuyu community, and daughters were not allowed to inherit from their fathers. The rationale for this was that the daughters were married off, and in a sense 'sold off' so there was no need to give them any land or property, for that matter, because they would get those from their husbands. So in this case, the wife and son of the deceased took over the estate, leaving nothing for the four daughters of the deceased.

That was then. Fast forward to present day. These four daughters went to court seeking a share in their late father's property. Their fate is in the hands of three Kikuyu elders who will give evidence as to how daughters can inherit under Kikuyu customary law. Before we go any further, let us just stop here for a little bit. I think I may have a very different attitude towards inheritance, but what is this greed, this monstrosity that overcomes people when a deceased person dies? I mean, the property is not yours. Well, not officially, so why do you want to keep everything to yourself locking out others? When you keep all that property, do you sleep so well knowing that you 'stole' from someone? In my opinion, these ladies should not have had to go court. All they would have done, is to actually have a sit- down with their mother and brother, and ask for a share of the estate. Unless he has squandered the property, he would have no reason to refuse this request. Okay, maybe they are not in good terms, but why would you deny your sisters property just because of their anatomy? God forbid if the deceased had all sons. It would have been a blood bath, and the media would have been more than happy to report. Let us assume that the son and mother have the same work ethic as the deceased if not more, and have been able to at least double the value of the estate. If the property would be divided among the four sisters, would the damage to what the mother and son are left with be so dismal enough to cause them injustice? I think not. Let us again assume that they did not double the value of the estate, but they had a stroke of bad luck, and the estate is not what it used to be. Does that validate their reason for not sharing the deceased's property with their family?

I thought blood was thicker than water, till I saw for myself what becomes of people in Succession, or rather Probate matters (yet another fancy tern lawyers use to mean matters relating to inheritance). People cannot agree on who gets what, and so matters drag on for years, people die, others are born, and these matters still dredge on, and none of the family members will let up,because they must get what is rightfully theirs. Question: Who told you that when your father or mother dies, they must  leave you anything? Les Brown, a motivational speaker in one of his talks mentioned, that if he had a quarter, and he knew he was going to die, he would swallow it. It was said in jest, but there are people who would rather die (excuse the pun) than let their children handle their wealth. It is no surprise anyway, given how we no longer have Pizza Garden, and Tuskys is always being mentioned every now and again  in the press (cough cough).

On the real, though, the revised Law of Succession act section 29 (a) provides that all wives, former wives and children, are allowed to inherit from the estate of the deceased. Whether or not the deceased person was maintaining them prior to his death, is neither here nor there. The other people who stand to inherit are parents, siblings, relatives up to the sixth  level of consanguinity (off the top of my head, that means your rela till the sixth level of the family tree. Hao wengine wajipange.) There is a condition for these to inherit: the deceased mus t have been maintaining them prior to his death (The Law of Succession Act section 29(b) Section 29(c) talks about men who stand to inherit if they can prove that their wife was maintaining them prior to her death. If you have been disinherited (left out of the will) section 26 of the Law of Succession Act comes to your rescue. Section 27 gives the court discretion to apportion the dependant who was left out of the will to be included, or make some provision for them in a manner that it thinks fit. Section 28 gives the courts the circumstances they should look at before they award they grant audience to the person who was disinherited.

I do not blame the members of this family though. There is just some demon that enters into people once they stand to inherit, and it is rather sad because these people forget that they are related. You would be forgiven to think that these are barbaric creatures who have no reason to care for one another, only for you to find out that they are actually related. It is quite sad. Many are the times you will hear a son hacked his father to death so that he can inherit. The old bat wasn't going fast enough. Well, according to the Law of Succession Act, section 96(1),  if you murder your parents so that you inherit, the law shall assume you died before your parents, and that means you cannot, will not, should not inherit. Just love on your parents (genuinely) so that they leave you a little something when they are gone.

.

Again, you have to be careful. Do not pretend to be all friendly when you know your folks are about to pass on. Ati you're so concerned with whether or not their taking their meds, whether or not they have eaten, who is helping them take their baths, if previously who could not care less (I wanted to use an analogy with a rat, but this is more polite.) People can see right through you, and that is undue influence. You are taking advantage of this person so that they can 'remember' you in their will. Should the will be challenged, I'm sorry. You're losing that property. You did not deserve to get it in the first place.

Then the most interesting of topics: mistresses,chips funga,side dishes, mpango wa kandos, all those lovely names these ladies go by. Under the Law of Succession Act, when your sponsor, or lover or husband as some may presume him to be, as a lady without that marriage certificate, you cannot inherit. Not even a dime. But, all hope is not lost. If you were lucky enough to bear a child with the deceased, this child can inherit under section 26 of this Act, but you lose out. This is not to say you run and get a marriage certificate from Lord knows where. The man must have the capacity to marry you i.e. he must be single, or in a polygamous marriage. But now...in customary marriages  you do not get certificates. Anyway, you will figure that out when you cross that bridge. My two cents: it is very complicated. If you have to think of all these things, then don't put yourself in such a situation, no matter what the guy tells you. Look out for yourself. 

The matter of the estate of Peter Mondo (Deceased)  is still being heard. I shall try keep up so that I share the developments. Up until then, please genuinely love your family. God gave them to you for a reason.