Saina & 2 others (As Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus (Deceased)) v Koria (Environment & Land Case E035 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3791 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a family to withdraw their land claim after their estate administrator's grant was revoked, ending the suit without any decision on who owns the land.
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, premised on the revocation of the grant in respect of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus, should be allowed
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should permit withdrawal of the Originating Summons
The application for withdrawal was merited and the suit was marked withdrawn with no orders as to costs
Counsel for the plaintiffs sought to withdraw the suit because the grant in respect of the estate whose administrators were the plaintiffs had been revoked, affecting the claim. Relying on the Beijing Industrial Designing case and Mativo J's decision in Priscilla Nyambura Njue, the court held that a plaintiff has a right to withdraw a suit, subject to the court's discretion, and that withdrawal is itself the suit's end.
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit and the court has the discretion to allow it
- The withdrawal of a suit is itself its end
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act over disputes relating to land within Nandi/Sigot/48
Relief refused
#Declaration extinguishing the registered proprietor's interest in Nandi/Sigot/48
Suit withdrawn before determination on the merits following revocation of the grant
Vesting of Nandi/Sigot/48 on the Applicants as administrators
Suit withdrawn before determination on the merits following revocation of the grant
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.
The plaintifi has the right to withdrawal the suit and the court has the discretion to allow it
A fortiori, this suit is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number of the Originating Summons or the names of parties as captioned; party identification is inferred from the pleading excerpt
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 Koria (Environment & Land Case E035 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3791 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 9th November 2022 (Kapsabet ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3791/eng@2025-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.