Judge to make ruling over Sh500m land next month

A judge has promised to bring to an end a two-decade succession feud involving a 52-year-old man and his biological father aged 84, over the distribution of the family patriarch’s estate valued at over Sh500 million in Uasin Gishu county.

The Eldoret High Court Presiding Judge Reuben Nyakundi has consequently directed the feuding parties in the case, Jonah Rutto and his father Philip Kutto to be present in court on September 23 when he will give his decision.

Justice Nyakundi is set to make a landmark ruling on whether Jonah is a brother to his father after he surprised the court that he is also entitled to a share of the late Kireger Kutto’s multi-million shillings estate as his adopted son.

“It is time to bring to a closure this case and I am going to deliver my ruling on 23 September,” stated Justice Nyakundi.

The judge subsequently directed all the parties to be present in court on the day he will read his decision.

The late Kireger is father to 22 children among them Jonah’s father Philip Kutto, who is the firstborn son to the deceased.

Four wives

He was also survived by four wives among them Christina who Rutto claimed was his adopted mother.

Lawyer Sewe Atieno is representing Philip Kutto, the defendant in the case, while lawyer Nyamweya is acting for Jonah Rutto.

 Rutto is in court to contest the distribution of the late Kireger’s estate, sparking a bitter succession case with his father.

The late Kireger who died aged 99, owned hundreds of acres of land and prime plots in Burnt Forest, Ziwa and Sergoit areas in Uasin Gishu County estimated at being worth more than Sh500 million.

Rutto has accused his father of sidelining him during the distribution of the vast estate left behind by his adoptive father despite being one of the beneficiaries.

Adopted child

He further told the judge that he was adopted by the late Kireger as his son through the Nandi customary law and not through the court process.

Rutto confessed that he did not attend the burial of Christina who he says is his adoptive mother after he was barred from accessing the site by family members including his father Philip.

“I was blocked from attending the burial of my adoptive mother due to bad blood that exists between me and my biological father related to the sharing of the estate left behind by my adoptive father Kireger,” stated Rutto.

Philip and his young brother Daniel Kiplagat had been granted letters of administration of their father’s estate before Rutto moved to court seeking order for the revocation of the same until his demands were made.

 Ruto has claimed in the documents filed in court that he is entitled to 80 acres of land that form part of the deceased’s multi-million shillings estate. He said that his adoptive father died intestate, leaving behind adopted and biological children who deserve a share of the estate that he left behind.

Rutto argued that he is among the children Kireger took care of through his second wife, Christina, since childhood.

 According to Rutto, his adoptive mother was not blessed with children of her own adding that Kireger passed away before effecting transfer of the said portion of land to him.

“We have been illegally and maliciously excluded as beneficiaries in the estate of the deceased as his adopted children,” claimed Rutto.

He took issue with the estate administrators’ decision to conceal material facts before the court in an attempt to disinherit him and other adopted siblings.

 He consequently asked the court to consider his petition and issue appropriate orders to save them from losing their share of the inheritance.

In his rejoinder, Philip has argued that to the best of his knowledge,

Jonah Rutto whom he refers to as his first-born son was never one of the children of late Kutto, whether adopted or biological, as alleged in the application filed in court.

He informed the court the objector was his son and that he educated him from primary to secondary school levels adding that he has receipts of the fees he paid towards his education.

“My son is not entitled to any portion of my late father’s estate as he is neither one of his children, beneficiary nor dependent on the deceased. He has no right to lay claim on the deceased’s estate,” argued Philip.

According to Philip, at no time did his son become an adopted child of the deceased, as he alleges in his court documents.