Two women are embroiled in a tussle over where to bury their late 100-year-old husband.

The first wife, Grace Rigiri moved to court and obtained orders stopping the burial that was to take place at the second wife’s home.

She claimed that she was married to the late and he should therefore be buried at her home in Embu County.

However, the second wife, Sarah Kathambi, has challenged the application saying her late husband left the first wife 40-years-ago.

Kathambi through lawyer Danstan Omari claims the first wife has no rights as they never lived as husband and wife since their separation.

In an affidavit, the second family has denied allegations that their mother coerced their late father to move out of the first wife‘s home to an undisclosed area.

Kathambi and her children say they have spent over Sh 5.8 M on the late during his sickness but the other family did not offer any support only to appear after his death.

“It is strange that the first family claim to have had a close proximity with the deceased yet they never catered for his needs including but not limited to medical bills which burdened the deceased’s second family alone,” they say in court documents.

“My father  left a will which he had indicated that he wanted to be buried at Lairang’i Mumui and so we agreed to have the will read the following day,” reads an affidavit by one of the second wife’s children.

It is the second family argument that divorce occurred upon his death and therefore, the Certificate of Marriage held by the wife was for the purpose of the living adding that it does not serve the purpose of the death.

“For 40 years, the deceased’s message was loud and clear that he had no business, relationship with the 1st Applicant nor was he intending to go back.  Just like the biblical term of 40 years when the Israelites were in the wilderness, the deceased cannot be taken back to where he left, he has reached his Canaan where he wants to be buried and therefore we seek to have his wishes respected,” the second family argues.