Court of Appeal Reinforces Dependants’ Rights in Succession, Balancing Testamentary Freedom with Statutory Protections

In Harvinder Kaur Dadhialla v Mohamed Munir Chaudri & Others (Civil Appeal No. E309 of 2021), the Court of Appeal in Nairobi delivered a significant judgment that underscores the delicate balance between testamentary freedom and the statutory obligation to provide for dependants under Kenya’s Law of Succession Act. The appellant, Harvinder Kaur Dadhialla, a biological daughter of the deceased, Gurdip Kaur Sagoo, successfully challenged the High Court’s dismissal of her application for reasonable provision from her mother’s estate, highlighting critical principles governing succession disputes.

Harvinder, appointed as an executor in her mother’s will dated 4th November 2011, was excluded from inheriting any part of the estate, which was bequeathed to her deceased brothers’ widows (the second and third respondents). The estate, valued at approximately Kshs. 750 million, comprised significant assets, including shares, real property, and bank holdings. Harvinder sought reasonable provision under Section 26 of the Law of Succession Act, arguing that the lifetime gifts she received—primarily £200,000 for her children’s education—were inadequate relative to the estate’s value and that her exclusion, purportedly based on Sikh cultural practices, was discriminatory and contrary to law. The respondents, including the estate’s executor (the first respondent) and the beneficiaries, contended that Harvinder’s exclusion was a deliberate and valid exercise of Gurdip’s testamentary freedom under Section 5 of the Act. They further argued that she had received substantial lifetime provisions totaling Kshs. 143,299,309 and failed to demonstrate compelling financial need. The High Court (Thande J.) dismissed Harvinder’s application, finding that the £200,000 gift, coupled with her father’s will excluding her, justified her omission. The court also noted Harvinder’s failure to provide detailed evidence of her financial needs.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Kiage, Achode, and Korir JJ.A., overturned the High Court’s ruling, emphasizing several key legal principles:

1. Testamentary Freedom and Its Limits: The Court reaffirmed the principle of testamentary freedom enshrined in Section 5 of the Act, which allows a testator to dispose of their property as they wish. However, it underscored that this freedom is not absolute and is subject to Section 26, which empowers courts to order reasonable provision for dependants if the testator’s disposition fails to adequately provide for them. Citing Elizabeth Kamene Ndolo v George Matata Ndolo [1996] eKLR, the Court noted that a testator must exercise this freedom responsibly, ensuring dependants are not unjustly disinherited.

2. Status of Biological Children as Dependants: Under Section 29(a) of the Act, Harvinder, as a biological child, was an automatic dependant, irrespective of whether she was maintained by the deceased prior to her death. The Court clarified, referencing In Re Estate of Annelies Anna Graff [2019] eKLR, that such dependants need not prove dependency but must demonstrate actual financial need to justify reasonable provision. Harvinder’s affidavit, stating her reliance on her husband’s support and limited savings, was uncontroverted, satisfying this requirement.

3. Separation of Parental Estates: A pivotal aspect of the judgment was the Court’s rejection of the High Court’s importation of the father’s (Balwant Singh Sagoo) intentions into the mother’s will. Balwant’s will explicitly excluded Harvinder, stating she had been sufficiently provided for during his lifetime. However, the Court held that Gurdip’s estate and will were distinct, governed by separate succession proceedings. The absence of explicit reasons in Gurdip’s will for excluding Harvinder meant that Balwant’s intentions could not be extrapolated to justify her exclusion, reinforcing the autonomy of individual testamentary dispositions.

4. Cultural Practices and Discrimination: The respondents’ reliance on Sikh cultural norms, which purportedly limit a married daughter’s inheritance, was deemed irrelevant and potentially discriminatory. The Court, aligning with Article 27 of the Kenyan Constitution, emphasized that cultural practices cannot override statutory protections or justify discriminatory exclusion, echoing sentiments in Popat v Popat & 3 Others [2021] KECA 106 (KLR).

5. Reasonable Provision and Estate Valuation: The Court considered the factors under Section 28, including the estate’s substantial value, Harvinder’s financial circumstances, and the lifetime gifts she received. While acknowledging the £200,000 gift, it found insufficient evidence to support the respondents’ claim of additional provisions totaling Kshs. 143,299,309. The estate’s estimated value of Kshs. 750 million underscored its capacity to accommodate reasonable provision without undermining the testator’s intent. However, the Court clarified that reasonable provision does not equate to equal distribution among beneficiaries, rejecting Harvinder’s proposal for a four-way split.

The Court ordered a reasonable provision of Kshs. 130 million for Harvinder, a significant sum reflecting the estate’s value and her status as a dependant. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding dependants’ rights while respecting testamentary intent. It clarifies that courts will intervene when exclusions lack justification or fail to account for dependants’ needs, particularly in high-value estates. The judgment also sets a precedent for handling cultural arguments in succession disputes, affirming that statutory and constitutional protections supersede customary practices that discriminate. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of clear, independent testamentary expressions, preventing the conflation of separate estates or wills.

This judgment is a reminder to testators to articulate reasons for excluding dependants in their wills to avoid post-mortem challenges. For practitioners, it underscores the need for thorough evidence of financial need and prior provisions when litigating reasonable provision claims, ensuring courts can make informed, equitable decisions.