Heir to Sh2 billion estate dragged through courts for 24 years by doubtful kin

Charles Wanjohi when he appeared before the Nyeri Magistrates Court on November 10 last year. He was charged with forgery and released on a Sh500,000 bond with a surety of a similar amount. Right: Wanjohi's mother, Wanjira Chomba. [Courtesy]

What does it benefit a man to inherit billions of shillings and spend his life laying claim to this wealth?

That has been the question troubling Charles Wanjohi, 52, who has spent much of his adult life fighting for a Sh2 billion estate he inherited from Wathuku Ngure, who he says was his father.

At the time of his death on September 7, 1996, Wathuku had 50 acres of coffee in Nyaribo Farm and an additional 130 acres under horticulture. The man also had a fleet of vehicles and tractors, and several bank accounts that held millions of shillings.

But in an ironic twist of fate, his funeral on September 14 aborted and the billionaire would be unceremoniously buried like a pauper. Mourners had to fundraise to bury him six months later in February 1997 because his clansmen could not agree on how to pay for the funeral and where to bury him.

It was around this time that Wanjohi was arrested and charged with, among other things, stealing from the estate and masquerading as an heir to Wathuku.

Upon learning that the patriarch had died, Wanjohi lodged the first case that extended Wathuku’s stay at Chiromo mortuary as he tried to assert his right to be involved in the ceremony.

He sued Wathuku’s brother, Githinji Ngure, his sister, Wahito Gichuki, and a cousin, Adriano Ngure, who were seeking to inter the deceased in Nyaribo, Nyeri. His complaint was that he was being sidelined in the burial arrangements despite being a biological son.

But Githinji, Wahito and Ngure distanced themselves from Wanjohi. They claimed that Wathuku had married two women who had died without bearing him an offspring. They, however, testified that Wanjohi’s mother, Wanjira Chomba, was one of the dead man’s many girlfriends.

Senior Resident Magistrate J. S Muchele, who heard the case in Nyeri, ordered the man to be buried. He also directed Wanjohi, Wanjira, Githinji and Wahito to give samples for a DNA test to ascertain their relationship to Wathuku.

The order dated November 28, 1996, was issued after all parties unanimously agreed to settle the paternity issue. But the DNA test, which ought to have been taken place at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (Kemri) between November 29 and December 10, 1996, has never been done. This decision would later cost a High Court judge his job.

Wathuku Ngure. [Courtesy]

After the burial, Wanjohi filed a succession case at the High Court seeking to be granted letters of administration as the heir of Wathuku’s estate.

In the hearing, Wanjohi claimed that Githinji and Wathuku’s cousin, Charles Mwangi Gitundu, had offered him Sh300,000 to withdraw the succession case.

In court papers, Wanjohi claimed that Mwangi approached him with another offer of Sh1.3 million to walk away. He testified that the offer was in writing but he declined ‘because he did not want to sell his birthright’.

To prove his case, he called John Rukwaro, a farm manager, to testify that Wathuku had recognised him as his son. Rukwaro said he had worked for the deceased for 16 years and that all 80 employees on the farm knew that Wanjohi was Wathuku’s son.

Died without children

Nyaribo assistant chief Michael Kairuki also testified that in 1990, Wathuku introduced Wanjohi as his son. The administrator said that Wathuku had been married to one Grace Mumbi who died without children.

Another witness, Gakindu chief Simon Njogu, told the court that he had written a letter for Wanjohi identifying him as Wathuku’s son after Ngure brought Wanjohi to him on the instructions of Wathuku.

Wanjira also testified before  the court that she was in a relationship with Wathuku between 1967 and 1968 when Wanjohi was born. She claimed that they never got married because Wathuku regularly beat her.

She asserted that Wathuku was Wanjohi’s biological father and that she was not interested in his estate. Court documents also showed that she was married to Josiah Chomba, one of Wathuku’s employees.

Wanjira told the court that sometime in 1990, Wathuku had asked for Wanjohi and she agreed to let him go to his father.

Michael Wahome, a witness, testified that he had been present when Wathuku demanded for Wanjohi from his mother.

Wahome said that after Chomba died, Wathuku called elders and announced that Wanjohi was his son.

Mwangi’s testimony was that his mother and Wathuku’s father were siblings and that he knew Wanjohi as a farm employee.

Court records show that Mwangi admitted signing an agreement to pay Wanjohi Sh1.3 million but the deal failed over alleged mistrust between Wanjohi’s lawyers and his advocate. He further told the court that the agreement was not an offer for Wanjohi to abandon his claim to the estate.

Githinji testified that Wanjohi was not his nephew and that he only came to know about him during the burial case.

He said that Wanjira used to work at a clinic in Gakindu and was friends with Wahito. He claimed to have never seen her in Wathuku’s company.

When asked why Mwangi was enjoined in the case, Githinji said that his brother had left a letter stating that he, too, should inherit his estate.

When Ngure took the stand to testify, he denied taking Wanjohi to the chief. He said that as the head of the clan, he could not allow an outsider to inherit or manage Wathuku’s property.

In her testimony, Wahito repeated what her brother and cousin had said. Another witness, Mary Nyawira, who was a factory manager, also claimed that Wathuku did not have a child and that Wanjohi was a farm employee.

Man was not impotent

In the end, Justice Joseph Vitalis Odero Juma ruled in Wanjohi’s favour, saying that none of the objectors had proved that the dead man had been impotent. He also noted that witnesses called by Githinji and Mwangi had contradicted each other.

“The objectors are not dependents of the deceased... I, therefore, declare that Wathuku Ngure died intestate and the petitioner, Charles Wanjohi, is the only heir to the estate of the said Wathuku Ngure,” Justice Juma ruled on October 18, 2001.

The judge, however, declined to order Githinji and Mwangi to refund Sh5.8 million they had allegedly withdrawn from the estate.

The two men filed an appeal in 2002. At the same time, Mwangi pursued Justice Juma and sought for his removal from the bench.

Former President Mwai Kibaki appointed justices Majid Cockar, John Mwera, Daniel Musinga and current Supreme Court judge Isaac Lenaola to hear the petition to remove Justice Juma from office over alleged misconduct.

In the tribunal case No. 4 of 2004, Mwangi claimed that it was Justice Juma who advised him not to pursue the DNA route, and instead fight Wanjohi in court.

During the hearing, it was alleged that there was a meeting at Outspan Hotel in Nyeri, and that Mwangi had given Sh200,000 through a proxy as a contribution towards the funeral expenses of Justice Juma’s mother.

The tribunal heard that Mwangi had tried and failed to have a court file given to the police to investigate Wanjohi. He sought the intervention of then Africa Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa Archbishop Simon Mwangi who gave him a letter to take to Provincial Commissioner Peter Kiilu seeking his intervention.

According to Mwangi, it was Kiilu who organised for him and Justice Juma to meet at Outspan. He testified that he told the judge about the issues surrounding the succession case after which Justice Juma advised him to abandon the idea and instead hire aggressive lawyers.

Kiilu also testified. He said that at the time, he was having dinner with Mwangi when the judge happened to pass by. He said that after introductions, Mwangi mentioned to the judge about some letters of administration being obtained fraudulently. He recalled that Justice Juma allegedly told Mwangi that there was a legal problem and he should hire a lawyer.

Kiilu told the tribunal that he could not recall whether the judge shared a table with them or not.

Justice Juma would later grant Mwangi and Githinji permission to withdraw Sh5 million without the knowledge of Wanjohi’s lawyer.

The judge, however, denied having received Sh200,000 from Kiilu, adding that although Mwangi met him with Kiilu, he was mistaken if he had thought he would get a favourable verdict from him.

Raised a red flag

The judge also testified that Mwangi would use the police to harass Wanjohi. This statement raised a red flag among tribunal members who wondered how he came to know about the police involvement.

“No witness gave evidence to show Gitundu (Mwangi’s surname) had used his influence to get him harassed by the police. From where had the subject judge got this information that Gitundu was using his influence to harass his opponent? A doubt is raised about the assertion of the subject judge that he had no personal association with Gitundu at all,” read the tribunal report that recommended Justice Juma be sacked.

Mwangi testified that after the judge ruled in favour of Wanjohi, he complained about him to the Justice Aaron Ringera committee. He admitted that this would not have happened if he had gotten a favourable judgement.

“Gitundu, as we stated earlier, was an accomplice with deep interest in this matter. His evidence was also heavily tainted with a sense of bitterness and a desire to get back at the subject judge because he admitted that he would not have complained to the Ringera committee if the judgment had been in favour of the objectors,” read the report dated May 2, 2008.

Justice Juma appealed the tribunal’s decision, complaining that he was not accorded a fair trial. On December 20, 2010, justices Martha Koome, Kalpana Rawal and Fred Ochieng partially allowed his case but did not reinstate him.

On April 1, 2009, Githinji and Mwangi filed an application asking to introduce the tribunal’s report as new evidence in the succession case. In his affidavit, Mwangi urged the court to order for a DNA test, saying there there were constitutional issues that had emerged.

But Appeal Court judges Samuel Bosire, Mojo Ole Keiwua and Joseph Nyambu dismissed the application, stating that the appellants “were granted a golden opportunity which they never used for more than 14 years.”

“We are of the view that the application falls short of the basic requirements which could trigger the exercise of the court’s discretion in their favour,” the three judges ruled on December 10, 2010.

Although the Kemri DNA test never happened, there was a DNA test from Biotech Forensics, a private clinic, that claimed Githinji and Wanjohi could not be related as uncle and nephew. The DNA report was reportedly gotten using a sample of Githinji’s blood and Wanjohi’s saliva, which was allegedly retrieved from a drinking glass.

In a letter, Biotech claimed that there was no need to exhume Wathuku’s body because a DNA test could be done on members of the extended family. Githinji and Mwangi also sought to have another private firm in the US, DNA Testing Centre, carry out the test.

In his response, Wanjohi told the court that five people were to be tested in 1996, and there had been the possibility of getting Wathuku’s blood.

The judges agreed with him. “In our view, the likely usefulness of the test has been put to doubt by the content of the brochure of the US firm, which had been identified to undertake the test.”

Githinji died in 2015 aged 83 and his son, Simon Ngure Githinji, joined the succession battle.

A total of 17 Court of Appeal judges and one High Court judge have handled the case that has no end in sight. So vicious is the battle that judges in different rulings agree that the saga qualifies for an Oscar or a bestseller novel “in which the dead might be turning in their graves in anticipation of the outcome, and those who are alive wait for the second coming of the Messiah so that the truth can declare itself.”

If Wathuku was alive today, he would have clearly stated whether Wanjohi is his blood son, making him the sole heir to assets that very few in the country will ever have. But dead men tell no tales.

According to Wanjohi’s court papers, the least Wathuku did for him was to go before a chief, swear an affidavit that he was his son, facilitated his change of name, and introduced him to his workers and friends as his son.

Githinji and Mwangi, on the other hand, have claimed that as representatives of the ‘Aceera’ clan they are entitled to inherit Wathuku because he had no surviving spouse or children.

This is disputed by Wanjohi who argues that he is the sole heir to the billions now wasting away. He has the witnesses and a thumb-stamped affidavit to prove that the patriarch recognised him as his son and even contributed to his education. 

On July 24 last year, Court of Appeal judges Kathurima M’Inoti, Agnes Murgor and Sankale ole Kantai threw out an application by Githinji Junior and Mwangi seeking to provide additional information from the Civil Registrar that Wanjohi had allegedly forged his birth documents.

DIFFERENT BIRTH DATES

The judges dismissed an application filed six months earlier on January 24, 2020 claiming that Wanjohi had a double registration with different birth dates. In his supporting affidavit, Mwangi claimed he discovered this after birth date and death records were digitised, long after the High Court verdict.

The two claimed that Wanjohi was born on December 6, 1965 and not in 1968. They argued that it was then impossible for him to have been born out of a relationship between Wathuku and Wanjira in 1967 and 1968.

In an affidavit before the Appeal Court, Mwangi claimed that sometime in 2019, his lawyer informed him that there was a letter written by Wanjohi’s lawyer in 2017 suggesting that he may have procured two identification cards.

According to Mwangi, he first visited the national registry in Nairobi and found that the letter had not been delivered. He then allegedly visited the Nyeri Central Registry and was referred to Kieni East where he was told that there were two birth records on Wanjohi–in one he was allegedly born in 1965 to a single mother, while in the other he was born in 1968 with Wathuku as his father and allegedly registered in 2006.

Wanjohi denied the claims, arguing that the documents produced by the two belonged to his brother, Peter Muriithi Chomba. His brother, in support of a plea to dismiss the application, produced his ID, birth certificate and passport that bore the same details.

The court threw out the application, noting that it was puzzling for the objectors to hold their peace for 20 years without going to hunt for the evidence they now wanted to rely on. According to the judges, they would have obtained the same information in 2000 when the case was before the High Court.

“Is the ‘Wanjohi’ referred to in the copy of the attached birth certificate the respondent, or is it possible that the name could be with reference to someone else? What documentation was used as the basis for arrival at the documents in question? And, given that the trial commenced in the year 2000 in the High Court, how possible would it be to test this evidence 20 years later, when many of the witnesses may not be alive today or cannot be traced?” asked the judges.

They continued: “It was in their interest to carry out a diligent search at the Birth and Deaths Registry to retrieve the information, which the applicants did not do at the time. The passage of 20 years since the trial was completed is an inordinately long time to seek to introduce such documents, and this appeal has been pending since 2002.”

After the second-highest court in the land threw out the application, the case took another twist, this time through the Nyeri Magistrates Court. On November 10 last year, Wanjohi was charged over claims of forgery based on the same documents that were rejected by the Appeals Court.

In the charge sheet, he is accused of making a false statement to the Civil Registrar that he was born on December 5, 1968. He is also accused of forging Wathuku’s affidavit with an intent of defrauding the estate.

Wathuku is said to have sworn an affidavit dated December 28, 1992 giving Wanjohi his name. This is the document that Wanjohi used to change his name, but his antagonists claim that he forged the card.

“Charles Wanjohi Chomba should now be named as Charles Wanjohi Wathuku as shown in my identity card. During the childhood of the former, he was named by the family members after his grandfather, Chomba, which should now be put right,” read Wathuku’s affidavit. 

Those listed as witnesses include Mwangi, Registrar Peter Mutua Simeon, Robert Mbui, Filbert Liwa and Labour Court Judge James Rika, who was once Wanjohi’s lawyer.

But it is not the first time that Wanjohi is being taken to court over the estate. He was charged six times between 1996 and 1999, including a claim that he had falsified documents.

How it all ends, only God knows.