https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3734
The court allowed withdrawal of the application dated 18/3/2026 because there was no objection. It awarded costs to the respondents because the appellant gave no proper basis to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event and did not justify having costs abide the outcome of the separate application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 3734 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: JACOB KIBITI KIRERA; 1st Respondent: FREDRICK KINOTI M’MWONGO; 2nd Respondent: STEPHEN LUMBWA; 3rd Respondent: PETER GITUMA MAINGI; 4th Respondent: ROSEMARY KATHAMBI; Interested Party: STANLEY KIOGORA ARTHUR
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E099 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Land Appeal / Ruling on Withdrawal of an Interlocutory Application After Directions and Submissions
- Outcome
- Application withdrawn; costs awarded to respondents
- Judges
- ["BM Eboso"]
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Application, Costs, Interlocutory Injunction, Stay of Execution, Status Quo Orders, Review of Directions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
JACOB KIBITI KIRERA
Appellant
FREDRICK KINOTI M’MWONGO
1st Respondent
STEPHEN LUMBWA
2nd Respondent
PETER GITUMA MAINGI
3rd Respondent
ROSEMARY KATHAMBI
4th Respondent
STANLEY KIOGORA ARTHUR
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Land Appeal / Ruling on Withdrawal of an Interlocutory Application After Directions and Submissions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be permitted to withdraw the application dated 18/3/2026
- 2 Whether costs of the withdrawn application should abide the outcome of the application dated 23/2/2026 or be awarded to the respondents
Ratio Decidendi
The court allowed withdrawal of the application dated 18/3/2026 because there was no objection. It awarded costs to the respondents because the appellant gave no proper basis to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event and did not justify having costs abide the outcome of the separate application dated 23/2/2026.
Court Disposition
Application withdrawn; costs awarded to respondents
Orders
- The application dated 18/3/2026 is marked withdrawn.
- The appellant shall bear costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU** **ELC LAND APPEAL CASE NO. E099 OF 2025** **JACOB KIBITI KIRERA................................................APPELLANT** **=VERSUS=** **FREDRICK KINOTI M’MWONGO........................1ST RESPONDENT** **STEPHEN LUMBWA..........................................2ND RESPONDENT** **PETER GITUMA MAINGI...................................3RD RESPONDENT** **ROSEMARY KATHAMBI....................................4TH RESPONDENT** **=AND=** **STANLEY KIOGORA ARTHUR.........................INTERESTED PARTY** **RULING** **(EX-TEMPORE)** **1**. The appellant brought a notice of motion dated 23/2/2026 seeking orders of stay of execution and interlocutory injunction. On 25/2/2026, this court [Eboso J] gave disposal directions on the application. **2.** Subsequent to that, the appellant brought a second application dated 18/3/2026 seeking: (i) an order setting aside the preceding directions/orders; and (ii) an interim order of injunction pending the interpartes hearing of the application dated 23/2/2026. **3.** On 23/3/2026, this court [Oguttu Mboya J] considered the application dated 18/3/2026 and listed it for hearing on 27/4/2026. In addition, the court [Oguttu Mboya J] granted the appellant a conditional status-quo order. **4.** When the two applications came up for hearing on 27/4/2026, counsel for the appellant insisted on prosecuting both applications notwithstanding the facts that: (i) the orders which the application dated 18/3/2026 sought to be reviewed were merely disposal directions relating to the application dated 23/2/2026 and there was nothing substantive to be reviewed at that point; and (ii) the prayer for an interim interlocutory order of injunction was to abide the interpartes hearing of the application dated 23/2/2026 and stood spent at that point. The two applications were subsequently canvassed through written submissions. **5.** Today, the appellant, through his counsel, has orally made an application to withdraw the application dated 18/3/2026. He., however, wants costs of the application to abide the outcome of the application dated 23/2/2026. **6.** On their part, the respondents concede to the withdrawal but insist that they should be awarded costs of the application because they responded to it and they filed and served written submissions on it. **7.** The court has considered the oral plea for withdrawal of the application dated 18/3/2026. In the absence of any objection, the same shall be allowed. On costs, the general principle is that costs follow the event. No proper grounds have been demonstrated to warrant a departure from the general principle. Secondly, the appellant has not justified his proposal that costs of the withdrawn application dated 18/3/2026 should abide the outcome of the application dated 23/2/2026. **8.** Consequently, the application dated 18/3/2026 is marked “**withdrawn**”. The appellant shall bear costs of the application **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.** **B M EBOSO [MR]** **ELC JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Mr Mugambi for the Respondents Mr Otieno C for the Applicant/Appellant Court Assistant – Mr. E. Tupet