[2017] KEELC 3545 (KLR)
The court held that Stephen Kiprono Birir, although previously authorized to act generally on behalf of the other petitioners, did not have specific authority to withdraw the petition for all petitioners. His notice of withdrawal could only be effective in so far as it related to his own interest in the petition....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3545 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kibet Arap Cheruiyot and 22 Others; Respondent: District Physical Planning Officer, Kericho and 5 Others
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 4 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Continue Petition After Partial Withdrawal
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Petition to proceed for remaining petitioners. Costs to be borne by Stephen Kiprono Birir.
- Judges
- MA Silau
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Petition, Authority of Representative, Joinder and Substitution, Land Allocation Disputes
- 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
Kibet Arap Cheruiyot and 22 Others
Applicant
District Physical Planning Officer, Kericho and 5 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Continue Petition After Partial Withdrawal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a single petitioner can withdraw a constitutional petition on behalf of all petitioners without express authority from the others.
- 2 Whether the notice of withdrawal filed by Stephen Kiprono Birir affects the rights of the remaining petitioners to continue with the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Stephen Kiprono Birir, although previously authorized to act generally on behalf of the other petitioners, did not have specific authority to withdraw the petition for all petitioners. His notice of withdrawal could only be effective in so far as it related to his own interest in the petition. The remaining petitioners were entitled to continue with the petition and to appoint another representative to act on their behalf. The court emphasized that collective action in representative suits requires express authority for fundamental steps such as withdrawal, and absent such authority, the rights of the other petitioners remain unaffected by the unilateral withdrawal of...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Petition to proceed for remaining petitioners. Costs to be borne by Stephen Kiprono Birir.
Orders
- The notice of withdrawal of petition is deemed to be a notice of withdrawal only for Stephen Kiprono Birir.
- The petition remains alive for the other petitioners, who may appoint a new representative.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
PETITION NO 4 OF 2013
KIBET ARAP CHERUIYOT AND 22 OTHERS.………………………………………………PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
DISTRICT PHYSICAL PLANNING OFFICER, KERICHOAND 5 OTHERS ………………RESPONDENTS
RULING
(Petition by several persons; one of the petitioners purporting to withdraw the petition for all petitioners; no authority to do so; notice of withdrawal to only be regarded as affecting the one petitioner; other petitioners at liberty to continue with the petition).
1. The substantive suit herein is a Constitutional Petition filed on 30 September 2013. As originally filed, the petition had four petitioners namely Stephen Kiprono Birir (Suing as the Trustee of Kericho Craft Centre), Barchok arap Koske, George arap Milgo, and Kibet arap Cheruiyot (Suing as Trustees of Serseren Konyor Men Group). The case of the petitioners as originally presented was a claim to ownership of various parcels of land in Chesinende Market Centre which the petitioners alleged to have been allocated sometimes in the early 1990s. The supporting affidavit to the petition was sworn by Stephen Kiprono Birir.
2. Through an application filed on 9 April 2014, the petitioners, through Stephen Kiprono Birir, sought to amend the petition inter alia to include other petitioners to bring the number of petitioners to 23. That application was allowed. In that application, Stephen Kiprono Birir annexed an authority signed by the other petitioners authorizing him to plead, testify and act on their behalf in the suit. However, on 30 July 2015, Stephen Kiprono Birir, filed a notice withdrawing the petition. He averred in the notice that he is the petitioner in the suit and has withdrawn the whole petition against the respondents.
3. The action by Stephen Kiprono Birir has now prompted the other petitioners to file an application that they be allowed to continue with the petition. They have averred that the notice of withdrawal should only affect Stephen Kiprono Birir and they have stated that the notice of withdrawal of the petition did not have the blessings of the other petitioners.
4. I have considered the application and I am inclined to allow it. It must be appreciated that Stephen Kiprono Birir was not the only petitioner in this suit. He had been given authority by the other petitioners to swear affidavits and deal generally with the suit. However, he could not withdraw the petition for the other petitioners without them having given him authority to do so. Stephen has indeed not demonstrated any direction by the other petitioners asking him to withdraw this petition. If he felt that he no longer wished to pursue the petition, he could only withdraw the petition in so far as it touches on his person only.
5. I therefore order that the notice of withdrawal of petition be deemed to be a notice of withdrawal only for Stephen Kiprono Birir. The petition will be deemed as alive in so far as the other petitioners are concerned and they are at liberty to appoint one of their own to plead and act generally on their behalf.
6. For the above reasons, I allow the application. The costs thereof will be shouldered by Stephen Kiprono Birir who clearly had no authority to discontinue the petition.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Kericho this 3rd day of February, 2017
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
KERICHO
PRESENT
Ms. Kitur holding brief for Mr. Miruka for 2nd – 23rd Petitioners/Applicants
No appearance on part of Respondents
Court Assistant; Wambany