The Widow of former Nakuru Mayor, Susan Thuo has been denied access and income from properties owned by her late husband Joseck Thuo by the sons.
Susan while talking to the press said she was struggling to cater for herself and her daughter Judy Mukami, who is disabled, since Thuo died.
She claimed that the sons have denied her total access of the rental property which she took part in building with the husband when the siblings were still young.
“They have denied me total access of the whole property and now I don’t get anything from here. And this is property from my husband which we built when the sons were still young,” said Susan.
The former Mayor was survived by two widows Mary, Susan and their five children.
As per her narration, Mary’s elder son has taken control over the property and receives all the income. He allegedly lives in the apartment in question.
Joseck Thuo’s Family Inheritance Battle
However, the family has been having legal battles regarding the inheritance of the assets after Thuo died on December 27, 2021.
Susan, her son Nixon Kariuki, and the daughter Mukami contested the authenticity of the will left behind by the businessman cum politician claiming the document had been forged.
Also Read: Ten Dragged to Court Over Ksh1 Billion Prime Land in Nairobi
Moreover, she claimed that some properties were omitted and that they had unrestricted and unsupervised access to the will before Thuo died.
The documents had been presented by Harrison Ngeta and Nahashon Kabiri at the high court who had petitioned for probate of Thuo’s will.
Justice Nyaga ordered the widows and the daughter to be receiving Ksh150,000 monthly before the case is determined.
“By the consent Sh150,000 to be withdrawn from NCBA for the provisions for the two widows and Judy equally per month,” the court ruled.
Thuo’s Will Claims
Thuo left behind a vast estate distributed among his two wives and five children.
The contested Will covers properties such as Abbey Resort in Nakuru, Abbey House in Nairobi, commercial buildings in Nakuru, and prime land in Nakuru, Gilgil, Murang’a and Nairobi.
According to Thuo’s lawyer it took two years to identify and confirm the properties that make up the tycoon’s Sh1 billion estate.
The lawyer told the court that after he drew the Will, he translated it into the Kikuyu language, which Thuo was most comfortable with.
The Will was attested by two witnesses according to the lawyer, who added that Thuo signed each of the three copies of the Will and certified the contents to be true.
However Susan and the two petitioners based their argument on the claims of Thuo’s driver Robert Kavisu, who the former mayor had allegedly entrusted with the document, that it had been interfered with.
Mr Kavisu claimed in court that Thuo used to move around with the document in the vehicle had asked him to hand it over to his son Nixon three days after his death.
Driver Confirms the Will Was Tampered
He told the court that when he went to get the document, he found it had been misplaced and its condition interfered with.
The objectors further questioned why the Will had left out some properties that belonged to Thuo including prime parcels of land, some with developments, in Gilgil, Kampi ya Moto and Elementaita, and shares in Safaricom and the Embakasi Ranching Company.
Also not captured in the Will the three family members said, was cash held in different bank accounts, including Equity, Bank of Africa, Barclays, Unaitas and NCBA as well as the benefits from the National Social Security Fund.
Also Read: Report Reveals Why Wealthy Kenyans Are Ditching Foreign Assets for Home Investments
The former mayor’s son James admitted to knowing that the properties belonged to his father. However, while defending the Will, he said it had a provision allowing the executors to take charge of the properties that had not been listed in the will.
“I am aware that Mzee left out some of the assets from the Will, but I do not see any problem with that because they were his and he had the discretion to do as he wished.
Furthermore, there was a provision in the Will where he has allowed the executors to take charge of the property that was not provided for in the Will,” James said during cross examination.
Mr Kagucia, the lawyer also defended the Will saying there was no purported original Will as all the three documents are counterparts of each other.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel for real-time news updates:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaB3k54HltYFiQ1f2i2C
