Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNotice of Motion dated 3rd April 2025 (within the main suit)

Chepkemei v County Government of Nandi & another (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 110 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 January 2026
GOG M A Ongondo
346 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A landowner's application for an interim injunction over Kapsabet land was allowed to be withdrawn, with no party paying the other's legal costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, by Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2025, sought interim injunctive relief against the Defendants/Respondents in respect of land reference number BK1/39/Kapsabet/Municipality pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The Respondents, through the office of the County Attorney, Nandi County, opposed the application in a replying affidavit sworn on 7th October 2025 by Alfayo Lel, the Municipal Manager, Kapsabet Municipality, and prayed for its dismissal with costs. At the hearing, Mr D. Tallam, learned counsel for the Applicant, applied to withdraw the application with no orders as to costs, on the ground that it had been overtaken by events in view of the upcoming hearing of the suit and possible settlement negotiations between the parties. Ms Chebet, learned counsel for the Respondents, did not oppose the withdrawal, having been notified. Relying on Council of Governors v Senate & another and Lelli v Kenya Medical Training College & 2 others, the court held that a party's choice to withdraw a suit or application cannot, as a general rule, be taken away from that party, that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents by the withdrawal, and that the court has discretion to allow withdrawal where sufficient explanation is given. The application was accordingly marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs. The main suit remains to be heard and possibly settled through negotiations between the parties.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant may withdraw the Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2025 with no orders as to costs

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant had the right to withdraw its Notice of Motion

Holding

Yes; withdrawal is a party's right, no prejudice to respondents, and the court has discretion to allow it.

Reasoning

Counsel for the Applicant applied to withdraw the application on the ground it had been overtaken by events, given the upcoming hearing and possible settlement negotiations. Counsel for the Respondents did not oppose, having been notified. The court applied the principle that withdrawal is a party's right, found no prejudice, and exercised its discretion to allow withdrawal with no orders as to costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party's choice to withdraw a suit or application before court cannot, as a general rule, be taken away from that party.
  • Withdrawal causes no prejudice where the other side is notified and no prejudice is shown.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application by way of Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2025 is marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs

The bench

#

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

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the court to permit withdrawal of an application (not expressly stated in the judgment)

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.

It is trite law that the choice by a party to withdraw a suit before court, as a general rule, cannot be taken away from that party
p. 1right of withdrawal
Accordingly, the application generated by way of a Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2025 is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
p. 2final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The name of the case/parties is not stated in the judgment, which refers only to 'Plaintifi/Applicant' and 'Defendants/Respondents'; the main suit number is also not given.

minor

Dates are internally inconsistent: the application was opposed by a replying affidavit sworn 7th October 2025 yet the applicant's notice of withdrawal refers to events overtaking the application filed in April 2025; also the date of delivery (20 January 2026) post-dates the affidavit. Minor typographical errors ('Plaintifi', 'suficient', 'withdrawn of the application') appear throughout.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chepkemei v County Government of Nandi & another (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 110 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2025 (within the main suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/110/eng@2026-01-20

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