Court Blocks First Wife From Burying 100-Year-Old Hubby Whose Body Has Been In Mortuary For 5 Months

The court has halted burial plans for 100-year-old Silas Igweta, who has been in the morgue for the last five months over a dispute between two of his wives. Photo: Zipporah Weru.

Source: Twitter

On July 29, 2024, a significant legal dispute over the burial of a 100-year-old man, Silas Igweta, took a new turn. 

The Court of Appeal has ordered a delay in the burial of Igweta, who has been in the morgue for the past five months, due to a conflict between his two wives.

Sarah Kathambi, the second wife, challenged a previous court decision that allowed the first wife, Grace Rigiri, to bury Igweta. 

Kathambi argued that Igweta had been separated from Rigiri for more than 40 years before his death. 

She claimed that the deceased had clearly indicated his desire not to return to Rigiri, making the decision on where he should be buried a matter of respecting his last wishes.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling halted Rigiri’s plans for the burial, which were scheduled for June 22, 2024, in Lairangi, Meru. 

The delay is to give the court time to hear Kathambi’s appeal against an earlier High Court decision that had ruled in favor of Rigiri. 

Kathambi’s lawyer, Danstan Omari, argued that if the burial proceeded before the appeal was heard, it would be impossible to undo the process if the appeal succeeded. This could lead to the difficult and costly situation of exhuming the body.

Omari emphasized that Igweta had not had any relationship with Rigiri for decades. He used a biblical analogy, comparing the situation to the Israelites’ 40 years in the wilderness, to stress that Igweta should not be taken back to a past he had left behind. 

The lawyer asked the court to honor Igweta’s wishes and allow him to be buried where he had intended.

The lower court had initially sided with Rigiri, but this decision was overturned by the High Court. Rigiri then appealed, seeking to resume burial arrangements. 

The Court of Appeal agreed to pause these plans, noting that failing to grant the order could result in a situation where the appeal would be pointless if the burial took place and later had to be reversed. 

The judges stated that resolving the dispute before burial was essential to avoid unnecessary hardship and disrespect.

The Court of Appeal's decision was based on the grounds that Kathambi’s appeal raised serious issues that needed to be addressed. 

The court noted that while Rigiri had moved Igweta’s body from a funeral home in Nairobi to another location in Meru, the body had not yet been buried. 

Therefore, the appeal was still relevant, and immediate action was necessary to prevent complications.

Omari further argued that if the burial went ahead without addressing the appeal, it would not only be costly but also potentially shameful for the family. 

He pointed out that African culture values the proper rest of the deceased and that any exhumation would be seen as causing unnecessary embarrassment.

In response, Rigiri’s family argued that Kathambi’s side had not shown that their appeal was strong or that it would be seriously affected if the burial proceeded. 

They had already moved the body from one funeral home to another and published an obituary, but the court’s decision halted these plans.

Previously, courts have ruled in similar cases that the person closest to the deceased at the time of death has the right to decide on the burial arrangements. 

However, this case adds a layer of legal complication due to the long separation between Igweta and Rigiri.

The ruling by the Court of Appeal reflects the importance of addressing such disputes carefully to respect the wishes of the deceased and avoid further complications.

The decision to stay the burial shows the court’s commitment to ensuring that all legal matters are resolved before finalizing any arrangements.