Two widows in court over where to bury their 100 year old husband

Lawyer Danstan Omari who is on recored for the second family of Silas Kamuta Igweta at Milimani Law Courts at a past date. PHOTO/Suek

The court has stopped the burial of a 100 year old man after his two wives disagreed on where to bury him.

Silas Kamuta Igweta passed away on 17th February in Nairobi after a short illness.

The first wife Grace Rigiri Silas has sued her counterpart Sarah Kathambi claiming that as the deceased’s first wife, she is entitled to bury him at her land.

Rigiri and the deceased are said to have married in a church wedding in 1959.

On the other hand, Kathambi claims that she and the deceased got married in a Meru customary marriage ceremony after which the two families lived together in the same house for several years in Nairiri before the deceased built a house for her at Mumui.

Through lawyer Danstan Omari, Kathambi claims that the deceased and his first wife became estranged and have been living separately for over 40 years.

“The 1st Plaintiff was the deceased’s first wife whom they have lived separately for 40 years.  Their separation was based on cruelty on the part of the 1st Plaintiff and her family,” says Kathambi.

According to her, the only reason the deceased never filed for a divorce from the first wife was because he never wanted any controversy.

She claims to have lived with the deceased until his demise and had even decided on where to bury him.

The will

Kathambi claims that the deceased left behind a will in which he indicated that he should not be buried at Rigiri’s home.

The court heard that in his will, the deceased stated that he should be buried at Lairang’i Mumui where he lived with his second family.

Kathambi avers that the claims by the first family that they had a close proximity with the deceased are untrue since they never catered for his needs including but not limited to medical bills which burdened the second family alone.

“The message was loud and clear that the deceased had already left and/or divorced the 1st Plaintiff and he had no business with her.  Therefore it is only prudent for the 1st Plaintiff and her family to let the deceased’s last wishes be fulfilled and have him interred in his desired home,” she added.

In the court documents, Kathambi and her children claim that they do not have any problem with the first family participating in the burial of the deceased, but their desire is to have their father’s will done.