A widow got a major reprieve after the High Court ordered a Nakuru law firm to disclose all assets, documents and information in its possession relating to the estate of her late husband, advocate Juma Kiplenge.
Justice Patricia Gichohi issued the orders in a case filed by Kiplenge's widow and administrator of his estate, Jedida Wairimu, against advocates Amos Andama and Makau Mutiso, trading as Kiplenge, Andama & Makau Advocates.
The court also directed the firm to account for all money, profits and other benefits that have accrued to Kiplenge's estate from the firm's business.
The dispute arose after Wairimu accused the surviving partners of withholding information on assets and unpaid legal fees earned by her late husband before his death on October 7, 2022.
According to court documents, Kiplenge founded Kiplenge & Kurgat Advocates in 2009 before forming Kiplenge, Andama & Makau Advocates on November 4, 2020, after admitting Andama and Mutiso as partners. Wairimu argued that her husband had completed substantial legal work before the new partnership was formed, leaving behind significant unpaid legal fees that form part of his estate.
She maintained that any receivables or profits arising from work completed before the defendants joined the partnership belonged solely to Kiplenge's estate.
Wairimu also accused the advocates of failing to disclose bank accounts, pending bills of costs and other assets linked to the practice despite repeated attempts to resolve the dispute out of court.
The defendants maintained that they had already provided a detailed inventory of the deceased's interests and explained how partnership funds had been utilised. They said more than Sh2.3 million had been spent on funeral expenses, medical bills and other costs following Kiplenge's death.
They further argued they could not account for profits generated by the former firm of Kiplenge & Kurgat Advocates because they had never been partners in that practice. They also opposed the dissolution of the current partnership, saying the partnership deed allowed the surviving partners to continue operating after the death of a partner.
In her judgment, Justice Gichohi found that the disclosure made by the defendants was incomplete, particularly regarding outstanding legal fees, receivables and bank accounts.
She observed that some of the legal work and court decrees relied on by the plaintiff had been completed years before the defendants joined the partnership, meaning any fees arising from those matters could still be payable to Kiplenge's estate.
The judge held that the firm's fiduciary duty required it to fully disclose and account for all receivables linked to the deceased's work until they were properly distributed to the estate.
She further ruled that partnership funds due to the deceased could only be paid to his estate and not directly to family members or service providers. While funeral expenses could properly be treated as liabilities of the estate, she found that medical bills and other family expenses incurred after Kiplenge's death could not be deducted from his share of the partnership without legal authority.
However, the court declined to declare that all profits from the former firm of Kiplenge & Kurgat Advocates belonged exclusively to Kiplenge's estate, noting that both founding partners had since died and the partnership deed governing that firm had not been produced in court.
Justice Gichohi also rejected Wairimu's request to dissolve Kiplenge, Andama & Makau Advocates, holding that the partnership agreement expressly allowed the surviving partners to continue operating the firm under the same name after the death of a partner.
The court partially allowed the suit, ordering full disclosure and a comprehensive accounting of assets and monies due to Kiplenge's estate. Wairimu was also awarded the costs of the case.
