[2025] KEELC 3757 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants, as plaintiffs, have the right to withdraw their suit, especially in light of the revocation of the grant relating to the estate forming the basis of their claim. There being no opposition and no response to the originating summons, and guided by established case law, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3757 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mike Kipngetich Saina; Applicant: Sainah Kiplagat Elijah; Applicant: Hosea Kiprop Saina; Respondent: Kimurei Arap Achina
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E032 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Withdrawal of Suit
- Outcome
- suit withdrawn
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Suit, Succession and Administration, Vesting Orders, Proprietary Interest Extinguishment
- 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
Mike Kipngetich Saina
Applicant
Sainah Kiplagat Elijah
Applicant
Hosea Kiprop Saina
Applicant
Kimurei Arap Achina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Withdrawal of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to withdraw the suit as administrators of the estate.
- 2 Whether the withdrawal of the suit affects the substantive rights over the suit land.
- 3 Whether the court should make any orders as to costs upon withdrawal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, as plaintiffs, have the right to withdraw their suit, especially in light of the revocation of the grant relating to the estate forming the basis of their claim. There being no opposition and no response to the originating summons, and guided by established case law, the court exercised its discretion to allow the withdrawal. The withdrawal of the suit effectively terminates the proceedings without a determination on the merits, and no orders as to costs were made.
Court Disposition
suit withdrawn
Orders
- The suit is marked as withdrawn.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Saina & 2 others (As Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus – Deceased) v Achina (Environment & Land Case E032 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3757 (KLR) (7 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3757 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Environment & Land Case E032 of 2022
GMA Ongondo, J
May 7, 2025
Between
Mike Kipngetich Saina
1st Applicant
Sainah Kiplagat Elijah
2nd Applicant
Hosea Kiprop Saina
3rd Applicant
As Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus – Deceased
and
Kimurei Arap Achina
Respondent
Ruling
1. The plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr Kipkosigei Choge notified and sought to withdraw the instant suit on the basis that the grant in respect of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus-Deceased, was revoked hence, an impact on the claim herein.
2. The suit was originated by way of an originating summons dated 9th November 2022 for orders infra;a.That this Honourable Court declares that the Registered Proprietor’s Interest, his Succession in title, presumed Administrators of the Estate of the registered proprietor, or whomsoever claiming through him that may be and or may have been registered as the proprietor of the whole Nandi/Sigot/3 occupied, possessed and used by the Applicants, be extinguished.b.That the Honourable Court be pleased further to order and direct that the whole Suit Land Nandi /Sigot/3 be vested on the Applicants ((as Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus – Deceased).
3. Clearly, there is no response to the originating summons not duly served.
4. Notably, it is the right of the plaintiffs to withdrawal the suit and the court has the discretion to allow it; see Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute-vs-Lagoon Development Ltd (2015) eKLR.
5. Further, I associate myself with Mativo J (Now, JA) in the case of Priscilla Nyambura Njue-vs-Geovhem Middle East Ltd, Kenya Bureau of Standards (Interested party) (2021) eKLR that the withdrawal of suit is itself it’s end.
6. In the present case, I find the application for withdrawal of the instant suit merited.
7. A fortiori, this suit is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
8. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 7THDAY OF MAY 2025. G M A ONGONDOJUDGEPresent;Mr K. Choge learned counsel for the plaintiffsMr Walter Kipkorir, court assistant