[2025] KEELC 3772 (KLR)
The court held that the plaintiffs, having sought to withdraw the suit due to the revocation of the grant relating to the estate, were entitled to do so. The court exercised its discretion to allow the withdrawal, noting that the withdrawal itself terminates the proceedings. No orders as to costs were made, as there...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3772 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mike Kipngetich Saina; Applicant: Sainah Kiplagat Elijah; Applicant: Hosea Kiprop Saina; Respondent: Simeon Arap Kurgat
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E033 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Withdrawal of Suit
- Outcome
- Suit withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Suit, Succession and Administration, Vesting of Land, Originating Summons
- 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
Simeon Arap Kurgat
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Withdrawal of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to withdraw the suit following the revocation of the grant in respect of the estate.
- 2 Whether the court should allow the withdrawal of the suit and on what terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the plaintiffs, having sought to withdraw the suit due to the revocation of the grant relating to the estate, were entitled to do so. The court exercised its discretion to allow the withdrawal, noting that the withdrawal itself terminates the proceedings. No orders as to costs were made, as there was no opposition or exceptional circumstances warranting such orders. The suit was accordingly marked as withdrawn.
Court Disposition
Suit withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
Orders
- The suit is marked as withdrawn.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Saina & 2 others (As Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus – Deceased) v Kurgat (Environment & Land Case E033 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3772 (KLR) (7 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3772 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Environment & Land Case E033 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
Simeon Arap Kurgat
Respondent
Ruling
1. Mr Kipkosigei Chege learned counsel for the plaintiffs has sought to withdraw this suit on the strength 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. Notably, the plaintiffs commenced the suit by an Originating Summons dated 9th November 2022 seeking orders, inter alia;(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/29 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/29 be vested on the Applicants ((as Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus – Deceased.
3. It is borne in mind that the plaintiffs have the right to withdrawal the suit and the court has the discretion to allow it as held in Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute-vs-Lagoon Development Ltd (2015) eKLR.
4. No doubt, the withdrawal of suit is itself it’s end; see Priscilla Nyambura Njue-vs-Geovhem Middle East Ltd, Kenya Bureau of Standards (Interested party) (2021) eKLR.
5. In the premises, I find the application for withdrawal of the instant suit meritorious.
6. The upshot is that this suit is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
7. 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 plaintiffWalter, court assistant