Saina & 2 others (As Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina arap Rarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus (Deceased)) v Bundotich (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E034 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3786 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 plaintiff's application to withdraw the suit should be allowed, given that the grant in respect of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus was revoked
Key legal issues
#Whether the application for withdrawal of the suit should be allowed
The application was merited and the suit was marked as withdrawn with no order of costs
Counsel for the plaintiff sought withdrawal because the grant in respect of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus had been revoked, which impacted the claim. The court noted that a plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit and the court has a discretion to allow it, citing Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute v Lagoon Development Ltd, and that withdrawal is itself the suit's end, citing Priscilla Nyambura Njue v Geovhem Middle East Ltd. On that basis the withdrawal was allowed.
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit, and the court has a discretion to allow such withdrawal
- Withdrawal of a suit is itself the suit's end
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is marked as withdrawn with no order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court); the judgment does not expressly cite the provision
Relief refused
#The substantive relief in the originating summons - declaration extinguishing the registered proprietor's interest and vesting of Nandi/Sigot/47 on the Applicants
The suit was withdrawn upon the plaintiff's own application after revocation of the grant in the succession matter; the court did not determine the claim on its merits
Costs
No order of costs - the suit was marked as withdrawn with no order of costs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.
A fortiori, this suit is hereby marked as withdrawn with no order of costs.
The plaintifi has the right 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.
Notably, the withdrawal of suit is itself it’s end as observed in Priscilla Nyambura Njue-vs-Geovhem Middle East Ltd, Kenya Bureau of Standards (Interested party) (2021) eKLR.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not name the parties in the usual style; the plaintiff's identity is inferred from the originating summons and the record, and the defendant is never identified by name
Recurring typographical errors ('plaintifis', 'plaintifi', 'TarusDeceased') and inconsistent party designation of the originating summons applicants
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 Rarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus (Deceased)) v Bundotich (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E034 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3786 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 9th November 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3786/eng@2025-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.