Muathe & others v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition 15 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1442 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to let 45 petitioners exit their case just to refile it elsewhere, because a new lawyer was already on record and refiling would waste time.
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 45 Applicants should be allowed to withdraw from the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the 45 Applicants should be permitted to withdraw from the constitutional petition
The application for withdrawal is declined despite the Applicants meeting the notice, service and no-objection requirements, because the reason for withdrawal (loss of confidence in their former advocates) has been cured and withdrawal would undermine expedition and waste judicial time
The court found the relationship between the Applicants and Maanzo & Co. Advocates had irretrievably broken down, evidenced by the refund of Kshs.200,000 and the firm's advocate/client bill of costs. However, the Applicants had already instructed Muriithi S. Kiragu & Co. Advocates who are properly on record in the same petition, so the purpose of withdrawal is achieved. The public interest aspects had already been determined by a three-judge bench on 11th July 2025, leaving only quantum; refiling a fresh petition would duplicate the same facts and prejudice expedition.
Whether the Respondent's application to strike out the notice of withdrawal constituted a response to the withdrawal application
It did not; the withdrawal application was treated as undefended since the striking-out application dated 24th October 2025 was the subject of a separate ruling
The firm of Maanzo & Co. Advocates did not respond to the withdrawal application but instead filed a separate application seeking to strike out the notice of withdrawal. The court held that this separate application could not be taken as a response, and no other party objected to the withdrawal application.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner has a right under Rule 27(1)(a) of the Mutunga Rules to apply to court for permission to withdraw a constitutional petition, subject to the three-fold test (proper notice and service, no objection, no prejudice to the public) set out in Peter Makau Musyoka & 19 others v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Energy & 14 others (2014)
- A litigant has a constitutional right to engage an advocate of their own choice
- Under Rule 17 of the Mutunga Rules the court may, on its own motion or on application, consolidate several petitions, and saving judicial time weighs against permitting withdrawal merely to file a fresh petition
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicants' application dated 21st March 2025 to withdraw from the petition is declined
- 2.No order as to costs given the public interest nature of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 27(1)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (Mutunga Rules)
Relief refused
#Leave for the 45 Applicants to withdraw from the petition
The relationship breakdown with the former advocates has been cured by the court finding that Muriithi S. Kiragu is properly on record; withdrawal and refiling would waste judicial time and serve no purpose since the facts affecting the Applicants are the same as those of the remaining petitioners
Costs
No order as to costs given the public interest nature of this petition
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.
I therefore decline to allow the Applicants to withdraw from this petition. I make no order as to costs given the public interest nature of this petition.
It will not be in the interest of expedition to allow the Applicants who withdraw from this petition. There is absolutely no need for the Applicants to withdraw from this petition only to file another one.
The Applicants having filed a notice of intention to act in person and subsequently gave instructions to M/s Muriithi S. Kiragu & Co. Advocates who has filed a notice of appointment to act for them and the firm of M/s Maanzo & Co. Advocates having filed an advocate/client bill of costs, this shows that indeed the relationship between the Applicant and the firm of Maanzo & Co. Advocates has irretrievably broken down.
Already the Applicants have exercised their constitutional right to take a lawyer of their own choice who is properly on record and who is urging the application for withdrawal from the petition on behalf of the Applicants.
Issues in the judgment
#The court and station are not identified anywhere in the ruling; the judgment is styled only with the judge's name
Inconsistent petitioner counts in the ruling: 64 petitioners listed, 53 signed the list, but the court refers to this as the number of petitioners in the original petition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muathe & others v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition 15 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1442 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1442/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.