Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment

Yego & 3 others v County Government of Nandi (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6656 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
1 October 2025
GOG M A Ongondo
465 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that parties can freely withdraw duplicate court applications, marking the motion withdrawn with costs to be decided later.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 20th June 2025, the plaintiffs/applicants through Mutta Advocates sought interim temporary injunctions restraining the defendant from constructing buildings, structures, walls or fences on the suit parcels LR. No. 7830/232, LR. No. 7830/231 and LR. No. 7830/233, pending directions on an application dated 6th May 2025, plus costs. When the matter came for inter-partes hearing, counsel Mr D Tallam moved to withdraw the application, explaining that the orders sought duplicated those in an application dated 26th May 2025. Counsel for the respondent, Mr A Kogo, raised no objection to the withdrawal but urged that the 26th May 2025 application also be withdrawn with costs to the respondent, noting that a replying affidavit sworn on 20th August 2025 responded to both applications. Mr Tallam countered that the replying affidavit responded to a different Notice of Motion dated 21st May 2025 which was not filed by the applicants. Framing the sole issue as whether the withdrawal was meritorious, the court applied the trite principle from Council of Governors v Senate & another (SC Reference No. 1 of 2014) that a party's choice to withdraw a matter cannot generally be taken away. Noting the similarity of the two applications and the absence of prejudice to the respondent, the court held the withdrawal was made in good faith. The application dated 20th June 2025 was marked withdrawn with costs in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the withdrawal of the application dated 20th June 2025 was meritorious

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants could withdraw their Notice of Motion dated 20th June 2025

Holding

The withdrawal was meritorious and allowed; the application was marked withdrawn with costs in the cause

Reasoning

The court accepted the trite position that a party generally retains the right to withdraw a matter before court, citing a Supreme Court reference. Both the 20th June 2025 and 26th May 2025 applications sought similar temporary injunctive relief over the same suit parcels, so withdrawal of the later application was in good faith and caused no prejudice to the Respondent, who did not object.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party's choice to withdraw a matter before court cannot, as a general rule, be taken away from that party

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 20th June 2025 was marked as withdrawn with costs in the cause

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit parcels LR. No. 7830/232, LR. No. 7830/231 and LR. No. 7830/233

Relief refused

#

Interim temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from construction activities on the suit parcels (sought in the withdrawn application)

The application was withdrawn by the Applicants because its orders duplicated those in the application dated 26th May 2025

p. 1

Costs

Costs in the cause (application marked withdrawn with costs in the cause)

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.

In the result, the application dated 20th June 2025, be and is hereby marked as withdrawn with costs in the cause.
p. 2Final orders - withdrawal
It is trite law that the choice by a party to withdraw a matter before court, as a general rule, cannot be taken away from that party
p. 2Right to withdraw proceedings
the Applicants have the right to withdraw the application. Plainly, the withdrawal of it is made in good faith and would not occasion any prejudice to the Respondent.
p. 2Good faith and prejudice

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Paragraph numbering is duplicated/irregular in the judgment (two paragraphs numbered '4')

minor

The application's prayers reference directions 'on 24th July, 2024' although the application is dated 20th June 2025 - an apparent typographical date inconsistency

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Yego & 3 others v County Government of Nandi (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6656 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6656/eng@2025-10-01

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.