Even in Death, Privacy Matters: The Legal Limits of Accessing a Deceased’s Estate Information

In Kenya, the right to privacy is a fundamental principle protected under Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. This right safeguards individuals from unwarranted searches, seizures, or disclosures of private information. A key question arises: does this protection extend beyond death? The High Court of Kenya addressed this issue in Peter Maina Mwaniki v Attorney General & 6 Others [2023] KEHC 22385 (KLR), offering significant insights into the balance between privacy rights and access to a deceased person’s estate information.

Case Summary

Peter Mwaniki sought to access account details from Amica Sacco belonging to his late mother, Ruth Muthoni Mwaniki. He claimed the account held over Kshs. 10 million, which was allegedly withdrawn fraudulently by third parties after her death in 2004. When the Sacco refused to provide the information, Mwaniki filed a constitutional petition, arguing that his rights to access information (Article 35), property (Article 40), and dignity (Article 28) were violated.

Court’s Ruling

The High Court dismissed Mwaniki’s petition, primarily because he lacked locus standi—the legal standing to bring the case. Mwaniki had not obtained letters of administration, which are required to act on behalf of a deceased person’s estate under the Law of Succession Act (Cap. 160, Laws of Kenya). The Court ruled that disclosing the account details without proper authorization would:

• Violate the deceased’s privacy rights under Article 31.
• Breach professional confidentiality obligations.
• Undermine the legal process established by the Law of Succession Act.

The Court emphasized that while Article 35 guarantees access to information, this right is not absolute. Article 24 allows limitations when disclosure would infringe on privacy, breach confidentiality, or disrupt due process.

Key Legal Principles

The case highlights several critical principles under Kenyan law:

1. Privacy Rights Extend Beyond Death

Article 31 of the Constitution protects individuals from having information about their family or private affairs unnecessarily revealed. The Court interpreted this to include the financial information of a deceased person’s estate, suggesting that privacy protections persist posthumously, particularly for sensitive data like bank or Sacco accounts.

2. Legal Authority is Essential

The Law of Succession Act mandates that only individuals with a valid grant of representation, such as letters of administration, can manage or access a deceased person’s estate. Without this, even close relatives like Mwaniki cannot lawfully demand estate information. Unauthorized access, known as intermeddling, may constitute a civil wrong or, in some cases, a criminal offense.

3. Balancing Constitutional Rights

The right to access information (Article 35) must be weighed against other rights, such as privacy (Article 31). Article 24 permits restrictions on rights when necessary to protect competing interests, such as confidentiality or legal processes. The Court found that Mwaniki’s claim to information did not override the privacy protections afforded to his mother’s estate.

4. Institutional Duty of Confidentiality

Financial institutions, including Saccos, are bound by a duty to maintain client confidentiality, even after a client’s death. The Court upheld Amica Sacco’s refusal to disclose information, reinforcing that such institutions must adhere to legal protocols before releasing sensitive data.

Broader Context

This case aligns with Kenya’s broader legal framework governing estate administration and privacy. The Law of Succession Act provides clear guidelines for intestate succession (when someone dies without a will), ensuring that estates are managed by authorized representatives. Similarly, the Access to Information Act, 2016, regulates how information is accessed, balancing transparency with privacy protections.

The ruling also reflects the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights while respecting established legal processes. It serves as a precedent for similar cases, clarifying that privacy rights do not vanish upon death and that due process is paramount in estate matters.

Practical Implications

For individuals seeking to access a deceased relative’s financial information, this case underscores the need to follow legal procedures:

• Obtain Letters of Administration: Apply to the court for a grant of representation if the deceased died intestate.
• Respect Institutional Protocols: Financial institutions are legally obligated to protect client data, requiring formal authorization for disclosure.
• Understand Constitutional Limits: Claims based on constitutional rights, like access to information, must comply with legal restrictions to avoid dismissal.

For legal practitioners, the case highlights the importance of advising clients on the correct procedures for estate administration and the potential pitfalls of bypassing due process.

Conclusion

The decision in Peter Maina Mwaniki v Attorney General & 6 Others reaffirms that privacy rights remain relevant even after death, particularly concerning sensitive estate information. It emphasizes the necessity of legal authorization and the delicate balance between constitutional rights. This case serves as a vital reminder for both the public and legal professionals that accessing a deceased person’s estate requires adherence to established laws, ensuring respect for privacy and due process.

Adapted from: Moses Kahoro