When High Court judge David Shikomera Majanja died on July 10, 2024, the country’s legal fraternity mourned the loss of a jurist widely respected for his intellectual rigour, integrity, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law.
But beyond the glowing tributes and solemn court eulogies, Justice Majanja left behind something that would soon plunge his family into one of the most painful, public and protracted succession disputes in recent judicial memory: a will, carefully drafted in June 2014.
Nearly two years after his death, that document, and what it did not fully anticipate, has frozen a multi-million-shilling estate, split his siblings into opposing camps, and left the late judge’s elderly, sick parents battling illness and poverty, locked out of funds once meant to sustain them.
At the centre of the dispute is Succession Cause No. E800 of 2024, currently before the Family Division of the High Court at Milimani, where lawyers, siblings and judges now wrestle over clauses, statutes and definitions, while time works cruelly against two parents who can no longer afford to wait.
Uncertainty
For Gerishom Lujito Majanja, 74, the passing of his son marked not only a personal tragedy but the beginning of a relentless struggle for survival.
Weak and battling chronic ailments, Lujito has been forced into an unfamiliar role, not as a retired patriarch supported by a successful son, but as a petitioner knocking on judicial doors for basic sustenance.
Once comfortably supported by Justice Majanja, both parents now live under the shadow of uncertainty, battling rising medical bills, dwindling savings, and the anxiety of not knowing where the next meal will come from, and the painful reality that the very system their son upheld is the same one keeping them waiting.
“It is not just about money,” Lujito said quietly in a recent interview, his voice heavy with exhaustion.
“It is about dignity, survival, and being able to live our final years in peace. We trusted the law, as David did all his life. But now, we wait.”
That wait has stretched on for months. Justice Majanja, 51, was unmarried and had no children at the time of his death.
Despite a distinguished judicial career, his personal life remained private and uncomplicated, a factor that now lies at the heart of the succession battle.
Born and educated partly in Western Kenya, Majanja was admitted to the Bar in 1998 and steadily rose through the ranks of the Judiciary.
He served in Nairobi, Kisumu, Homa Bay, Migori, and Kisii, sitting in the Commercial and Tax Divisions of the High Court.
He earned widespread respect for meticulous rulings, restraint, and a reputation for incorruptibility.
At the time of his death, his estate, comprising bank accounts, shares, post-employment benefits, and properties in Nairobi, Kisumu, Kakamega, Kajiado and Mavoko, was conservatively valued at over Sh22 million.
Yet, without a spouse or children, the question of who should inherit what, and how, became fraught with legal complexity.
Justice Majanja’s will, dated June 21, 2014, was clear on some matters, but silent or ambiguous on others.
According to the will seen by The Nairobian, the bulk of the estate, particularly bank funds and shares, was bequeathed to his youngest brother, Martin Aluvisia Majanja.
In paragraph 4(c) of the will, the judge directed: “All monies in my Bank Account and shares, choses in action [to] Martin Aluvisia Majanja absolutely.”
One of his sisters, Annette Lutivini Majanja, was bequeathed all household items and a property in Butsotso, which was to be shared with step-brother Allan Siema.
According to the will, the apartment where he lived in Kilimani, Nairobi, will be shared between Allan, Annette, and his other step-brother, Martin Majanja.
Justice Majanja also appointed Joseph Kihanya and his former law firm partner Steve Luseno as executors of the testate portion of the estate.
For the intestate portion, a Grant of Letters of Administration was issued to his father and one Genard Louis Muhanji Majanja.
He gave Kihanya and Luseno the option of appointing another trustee in the event either died or chose not to continue executing his duties.
“If any of the trustees shall die or cease to be a trustee for any reason, the surviving trustee(s) shall have power to appoint another trustee in his discretion and to transfer trust property to his name or her name along with the surviving trustee,” the judge directed.
It also contained an unusual personal directive: that the judge was also to be cremated the same day he died.
“I hereby direct that my body is to be disposed of by cremation immediately upon my death. The only delay authorised is for an autopsy, if such is deemed necessary for my executors to determine the cause of death.”
However, not all assets had been acquired by 2024, and crucially, certain benefits, including insurance and post-retirement benefits, were not explicitly addressed.
That omission now lies at the heart of the dispute being contested in court, which has led to the freezing of the multi-million estate.
Ill wife
The fiercest battle centres around Group Life Assurance Policy proceeds, a benefit attached to Justice Majanja’s judicial service.
Following Majanja’s death, Lujito personally went to the Office of the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary in November 2024, seeking access to his son’s benefits.
Instead, he received a devastating response.
In a letter dated November 13, 2024, the Judiciary informed him that the late judge had not nominated any beneficiary under the Group Life Assurance Policy.
“The late Justice Majanja did not fill a life assurance policy beneficiary nomination form as required under Section 111(1) and 111(2) of the Insurance Act, thereby subjecting these proceeds to distribution under the Law of Succession Act,” the letter stated.
The consequence was immediate and severe: no funds could be released without court determination.
While Lujito hoped the funds would be released to support him and his ill wife, the matter took a new turn when Martin moved to court seeking to have the insurance proceeds paid exclusively to him.
He argues that the insurance benefits fell under “choses in action” already bequeathed to him in the will.
That position was fiercely opposed by Majanja’s sister Annette, who filed a replying affidavit dated October 14, 2025, on the attempts to release the Group Life Assurance proceeds solely to Martin, insisting that the funds were not part of the testamentary estate.
“The bequeathment in the deceased’s written will is extrinsic to the dictates of the Group Life Assurance Policy, and therefore the applicant is unfounded in construing an expression of the will to be a nomination in a totally distinct scheme,” Annette states in her court filings dated October 2025.
“I have read and understood the Application herein, whereby the Applicant seeks to have proceeds of the deceased Group Life Assurance Policy distributed solely to him, on the basis that the same are classified as choses in action. I oppose the Application entirely,” she adds.
Annette argues that insurance benefits are governed by a separate statutory regime and cannot be distributed through a will unless a proper nomination exists. “I am advised by my advocates that the said funds are nominations under the Insurance Act, not to be misconstrued as choses in action as contended by the Applicant.”
She warned that allowing Martin’s application would illegally disinherit the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate.
Her affidavit relied heavily on the Judiciary Service Commission’s letter of November 13, 2024, which confirmed that no beneficiary nomination existed.
“Indeed, the Judiciary Service Commission… clarified that the deceased did not, in his lifetime, nominate a beneficiary for the proceeds of the funds in the Group Life Assurance Policy,” argued Annette.
Her position is that, since there was no nomination of beneficiaries under the insurance policy, the funds should be treated as part of the unadministered estate and shared under intestacy rules, a move that would distribute the estate more widely among surviving family members rather than solely to Martin Majanja.
Survival
The affidavit further reveals that Martin, through his advocates, wrote to the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary seeking release of the deceased’s benefits, including pensions and insurance proceeds, solely to him.
Annette says the Office of the Chief Registrar subsequently sought concurrence from all parties, but her advocates responded by outlining the legal position opposing Martin’s claim.
“Upon the Office of the Chief Registrar writing to the parties to seek concurrence, my advocates… communicated this legal position through the letter dated October 6th, 2025… which the Applicant has elected to disregard,” she states.
With the estate locked in legal stalemate, Majanja’s father’s health continued to deteriorate.
“When David died, a will surfaced in which he distributed some things, including money in the bank and insurance benefits. In particular, he loved Martin,” Lujito said.
“We have provided everything required for the payment, but continue to be frustrated by postponements. I was dependent on David. He took care of me. I have heart problems and cancer. My wife is also ill. We need this money for treatment and to live,” stated the old man.
In desperation, the family’s advocates, Murage Juma & Company, escalated the matter to Chief Justice Martha Koome.
In a letter dated December 17, 2025, the lawyers made an emotional plea for intervention, writing that the delay had left the deceased judge’s parents exposed and desperate.
“The deceased’s father approached the Office of the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary in November 2024 seeking the benefits due to the estate of the deceased. It is a matter of compassion and urgency. The deceased’s parents require immediate access to funds to cover medical expenses and basic living costs. We urge your ladyship to expedite this matter,” they stated.
The advocates have also invoked Section 39 of the Law of Succession Act, arguing that in the absence of a surviving spouse or children, the deceased’s parents rank highly in priority of inheritance, and any delay in disbursement causes undue hardship.
According to Majanja’s parents, they sought the Chief Justice’s intervention after the judge handling the succession dispute informed them late last year that judgment would be delivered “on notice.” That notice has yet to come.
The court is now expected to determine whether the Group Life Assurance Policy proceeds can be treated as part of the deceased’s testamentary estate under the will, or whether the entitled proceeds fall under intestacy rules governed by the Insurance Act and the Law of Succession Act.
Until that question is resolved, no money can be released. Yet in life, Justice Majanja was known for resolving disputes and upholding fairness.
He presided over landmark rulings on VAT regulations, the Finance Act of 2022, and post-election violence cases, earning admiration across the legal profession.
But in death, his estate has become a painful paradox, a judge who upheld justice now caught in its slowest, most unforgiving machinery.
As the legal battle drags on, his parents continue to wait, not for victory, but for survival.
