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)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land dispute ended when the administrators withdrew their case after the succession grant backing their claim was revoked, with no costs ordered.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the plaintiffs' application to withdraw the suit should be allowed in light of the revocation of the grant in respect of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should permit withdrawal of the originating summons
The application for withdrawal was merited and the suit was marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
The plaintiffs' counsel notified the court of the intention to withdraw the suit because the grant in the succession cause had been revoked, affecting the claim. The court noted that withdrawal is a plaintiff's right subject to the court's discretion, adopted the reasoning in the Beijing Industrial and Priscilla Nyambura Njue authorities, found no response to the originating summons, and allowed the withdrawal.
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit and the court retains a discretion to allow the withdrawal
- Withdrawal of a suit is itself its end
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is marked as withdrawn
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; first-instance suit under the court's originating summons jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Declaration extinguishing the registered proprietor's interest in Nandi/Sigot/3
Suit withdrawn by the plaintiffs' counsel following revocation of the grant in the succession cause, so the substantive reliefs were never determined
Vesting of Nandi/Sigot/3 in the Applicants as administrators of the estate
Suit withdrawn before determination; relief not granted
Costs
No orders as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Clearly, there is no response to the originating summons not duly served.
it is the right of the plaintifis to withdrawal the suit and the court has the discretion to allow it
this suit is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, suit title or parties' full names beyond references to 'the plaintiffs' and the deceased's estate
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "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)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3757/eng@2025-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.