Naivas Founder’s Will: Church Inherits Ties, Estate Distribution Revealed

Visit Website.
Features
Bonus Codes
Rating
TRY DEMO
1 Quotex logo without background
  • Start trading with $1
  • Earn up to 95% profits
  • Fast payments
  • $10 minimum deposit
  • $10 minimum withdrawal
According to the document, Daniel Mukuha Njau was given a share of plot 42 in Naivasha. Peter Mukuha Nyoro was given a whole share of a plot in Kampi ya Moto. David Kimani, Grace Wamboi, and Simon Gashwe were given House Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively, located on plot Number 121 in Lake View Naivasha. Linet Wairimu Mukuha was to get the whole share of plot number 1/125 in Kihoto.

A will purported to have been left behind by Naivas supermarket chain founder, the late Peter Mukuha Kago, has revealed how he subdivided his vast estate.

A copy of the will attached to a grant issued to his son David Kimani Mukuha and Grace Wambui Mukuha on March 11, 2024, reveals the late Kago had a vast estate. The grant, as indicated, does not allow them to transfer any of the property.

“Please note that this grant cannot be used to transfer any of the property of the deceased,” reads part of the grant signed by Justice Heston Nyaga.

Kago died on May 6, 2010.

Kago, as per the will, wished to have his clothing given to his family members except his ties. The ties the document indicates were to be given to the church.

Kago, as per the will, wished to have his clothing given to his family members except his ties. The ties the document indicates were to be given to the church.

Other properties listed are parcels of land in Naivasha, Kampi ya Moto, shares at Naivas Limited, cash at Barclays Bank Naivasha Branch, cash at Kenya Commercial Bank Limited Naivasha Branch, shares with Standard Chartered Bank Limited, Post Office Savings Bank Account, and a motor vehicle.

Visit Website.
Features
Bonus Codes
Rating
TRY DEMO
1 Quotex logo without background
  • Start trading with $1
  • Earn up to 95% profits
  • Fast payments
  • $10 minimum deposit
  • $10 minimum withdrawal

Distribution of Assets: Equal Shares from Bank Accounts and Property Among Heirs

According to the document, Daniel Mukuha Njau was given a share of plot 42 in Naivasha.

Peter Mukuha Nyoro was given a whole share of a plot in Kampi ya Moto.

David Kimani, Grace Wamboi, and Simon Gashwe were given House Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively, located on plot Number 121 in Lake View Naivasha.

Linet Wairimu Mukuha was to get the whole share of plot number 1/125 in Kihoto.

Visit Website.
Features
Bonus Codes
Rating
TRY DEMO
1 Quotex logo without background
  • Start trading with $1
  • Earn up to 95% profits
  • Fast payments
  • $10 minimum deposit
  • $10 minimum withdrawal

Simon Gashwe, David Kimani, Grace Wamboi, and Linet Wairimu were designated to receive a portion of Naivas Limited, with 20% of the shares being divided among them. Gashwe and Kimani were each allotted 4% of the shares, whereas Wamboi and Wairimu were each set to receive 6%.

The cash at Barclays Bank Limited Naivasha was to be subdivided equally among the estate heirs.

The cash at the Barclays Bank Naivasha branch fixed account was also to be subdivided equally.

Peter Mukuha Kago, Charles Mukuha, Mercy Irene Waithera, Jane Wangui Kagira, and Mercy Waithera were to get Sh. 500, 000 each from cash held at the Kenya Commercial Bank Limited Naivasha Branch.

Teresia Njeri Mukuha, Grace Muthoni, Ruth Wanjiru, Newton Kagira, Hannah Njeri, Simon Gashwe, Grace Wanjiru, Linet Wairimu, and David Kimani were to get an equal share of the balance in the account.

Shares with Standard Chartered Bank Limited were to be sold and shared equally among Teresia Njeri, Grace Muthoni, Ruth Wanjiru, Newton Kagira, Hannah Njeri, Simon Gashwe, Grace Wanjiru, Linet Wairimu, and David Kimani. They were also to get equal shares of savings in the Post Office Savings Bank Account.

Linet Wairimu was to get a whole share of the motor vehicle left behind by Mukuha.

Appeal Challenges Estate Division in Nakuru Court

The will purported to have been left behind is subject to an appeal pending before a Nakuru Court.

Newton Kagira, in the appeal, is questioning the validity of the will presented in court concerning the subdivision of his father’s estate.

He wants the court to set aside a judgment of the High Court in Nakuru delivered on October 31, 2014.

Justice Anyara Emukule, in the 2014 ruling, dismissed an application by Kagira who wanted his brother Simon Gashwe Mukuha (now deceased) to be barred from interfering with their father’s estate, specifically Naivas Limited shares.

Kagira then claimed his brother and his agents had unlawfully embarked on selling Naivas shares owned by their late father to the total exclusion of other estate beneficiaries.

Gashwe, in response, said their late father had 10,000 ordinary shares, translating to 10 percent of the capital in Naivas Limited.

He said the shares were distributed by the will of the deceased. Gashwe, as per the will, got four percent of the shares, David Kimani Mukuha four percent, Grace Wambui six percent, and Linet Wairimu six percent.

He said Kagira’s objection was unmerited as the directors of Naivas Limited had not resolved to sell the shares. Justice Emukule, in his ruling, said Kagira had no interest, legal or equitable, in Naivas Limited.

Visit Website.
Features
Bonus Codes
Rating
TRY DEMO
1 Quotex logo without background
  • Start trading with $1
  • Earn up to 95% profits
  • Fast payments
  • $10 minimum deposit
  • $10 minimum withdrawal

Contesting the Will: Kagira’s Appeal Against Inheritance Decision

The judge said Kagira was given his inheritance by his father, which included a business store and a house. Dissatisfied with the decision, Kagira appealed in August 2016.

In his submissions filed at the Court of Appeal, Kagira claims the extract of the will filed by Gashwe is devoid of the elements of a will.

Kagira states that a glimpse of the purported extract of the will is authored by someone else.

The author of the will, he said, went on to tell the story of what property the deceased had and also gave his direct opinion that the deed fell short of a conclusion. He also quoted the deceased’s bank account as of May 10, 2010, yet he died on May 6, 2010.

End…

Leave a Comment