Karume paternity suit struck out

The man claiming to be a son of former minister Njenga Karume was dealt a double blow after a court dismissed his application to substitute the name of Mr Karume’s widow moments after he withdrew a request to stop the burial. (READ: Man wants Karume burial stopped over paternity row)

Mr Edwin Thuo told the court that he had withdrawn an application seeking to stop the businessman-cum-politician’s burial until a DNA sample was taken to prove he was his son.

He instead filed another petition seeking an order that a grant of letters of administration of Mr Karume’s estates be issued to his widow Grace Njoki Njenga so that she could be the substitute in various suits he filed against the former Defence minister.

Mr Thuo submitted he was a son of Mr Karume as a result of a union with his mother, Ms Lucy Muthoni Thuo.

In the first case filed in 2007, Mr Thuo was paid Sh5 million to drop all claims he had against Mr Karume while he lost the second one filed in November last year after Mr Justice David Majanja threw out his request for a DNA test.

On Tuesday, Mr Justice GBM Kariuki dismissed the application as misplaced, with no merit and that it was being sought in a vacuum.

The judge noted that Mr Thuo did not allege that he was a beneficiary or an heir in Mr Karume’s estate but wanted the former minister substituted with his widow whom he named as the respondent in the suit.

Justice Kariuki said that Mr Thuo had conceded that the case he had filed in 2007 with his mother had been concluded.

On the second case, which was determined by Justice Majanja and which Mr Thuo said he intended to appeal, the judge said the rules of the Appelate Court did not require parties to be substituted.

Without merit

Justice Kariuki ruled that since the application was predicated on the two cases which Mr Thuo filed against Mr Karume and which had been finalised, the petition would remain misplaced without any merit to warrant the orders sought.

The judge added that even though Mr Thuo had shown the desire to continue with the cases, Mr Karume’s widow had not applied for a grant of letters of administration and it would be unfair to drag her in the petitions yet her husband died just a few days ago.

He ruled that the law forbade making a grant of letters of administration to one person as requested by Mr Thuo when there were other dependants unless that person was the public trustee.

The judge said that Mr Karume’s death did not give rise to abatement of the appeal, and there was no basis for Mr Thuo to rush to court with the application.