A Milimani commercial court on February 22, stopped the burial of a 100-year-old man following a suit filed.
This follows a tussle between his two wives Grace Rigiri and Sarah Kathambi who are first and second respectively, on where their late husband should be buried.
Rigiri moved to court seeking orders stopping the removal and disposing of the body of the deceased Silas Kamuta Igweta from Umash Funeral Home.
“Pending the hearing and determination of this Application, this Honorable Court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction, restraining the Defendants/Respondents by themselves, their servants, employees, agents, family members, relatives and/or any other persons whomsoever acting under their instructions from removing and disposing off the body of the deceased – Silas Kamuta Igweta from Umash Funeral Home in Nairobi City County or wherever the body would be transferred, interring the remains of the Deceased and/or interfering with the said body in any manner whatsoever,” read the court papers
Rigiri alleged that she was married to him on July 27, 1959 and she was subsequently issued with a marriage certificate and that she lived with him as husband and wife until his demise on February 17.
However Kathambi the second wife of the deceased challenged the case alleging that Rigiri and the deceased prior to his death were living separately for more than 40 years.
She alleged that Rigiri introduced her as his second wife to the parents and subsequently paid for the dowry according to the Meru customary law.
Rigiri alleged that her and her son who are applicants in this matter would be prejudiced if the court does not allow them orders sort.
She said that her and her children would suffer untold and extreme mental, physical and emotional trauma, anguish and insurmountable social embarrassment.
“The first Plaintiff/Applicant being the deceased’s spouse and son respectively and considering their closeness and proximity to the deceased, they ought to be allowed to bury the deceased,” she told the court.
Kathambi through her lawyer Danstan Omari argued that they have spent Sh5.6 million and Sh971 million for the deceased’s medical bills and maintenance respectively while the applicants neglected to cater for the deceased emotional support in his old age.
“It is strange that the first family claim to have had a close proximity with the deceased yet they never catered for his needs including but not limited to medical bills which burdened the deceased’s second family alone,” reads court documents.
Omari also argued that the marriage between the first wife and the deceased ended upon death just like the vows prescribe that ‘until death do us part’.
“The vows of marriage that Rigiri took with the deceased were to the effect “till death do us part”. This means that they were only husband and wife until death occasioned. Therefore, on the date of death the implication is that they are no longer married. They have parted ways.”
Omari further alleged that the deceased hated the first wife and would hate it if he was to be buried in a place where he hated.
“That the first Applicant failed to seek reconciliation on his last days. when he was in hospital means and shows that she hated the deceased so much
and therefore she cannot now purport to now come looking for the remains of the deceased so that she achieves here revenge mission to detain the remains of the deceased where he does not want to be.”
The hearing of the matter is scheduled for February 28.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
