Mutai & 6 others v Inspector General of Police & 9 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3172 (KLR)
The bottom line
#About 1,500 Chebonet residents withdrew their eviction petition in Kenya's Environment and Land Court, and no party was forced to pay the other's legal costs.
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 Notice of Withdrawal dated 4th May 2026 should be allowed
- 2.What orders as to costs should follow the withdrawal of the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition could be withdrawn before hearing
Yes; the petitioners freely and voluntarily withdrew the entire petition and the Notice of Withdrawal was allowed
The court applied the established principle that parties have a constitutional right to freely and voluntarily withdraw a matter before court, citing Geoffrey M. Asanyo & 3 others v Attorney General and Robert Lelli v Kenya Medical Training College & 2 others. Counsel for the respondents and the intended interested parties confirmed service and raised no substantive objection to the withdrawal.
Costs upon withdrawal of a petition with a public interest element
Each party to bear their own costs, departing from the general rule that costs follow the event
Counsel for the intended interested parties sought costs as costs follow the event, but the court, weighing the public interest element in the petition and guided by the Supreme Court decision in Jasbir Singh Rai v Tarlochan Rai, directed that parties bear their own costs of the petition.
Legal principles established
#- Parties have a constitutional right to freely and voluntarily agree to withdraw a matter before court
- In matters with a public interest element, the court may order that parties bear their own costs notwithstanding that costs follow the event
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Withdrawal dated 4th May 2026 has merit and is allowed
- 2.The petition is marked as withdrawn in entirety
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction under Articles 26, 27, 28, 29, 40, 47, 48, 60, 61 and 63 of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#All declaratory, injunction and conservatory reliefs sought in the petition
The petition was withdrawn in its entirety before hearing, so the substantive reliefs were never determined
Costs
Parties to bear their own costs of the petition, guided by the public interest element in the petition and the Supreme Court decision in Jasbir Singh Rai & others v Tarlochan Rai & others (2014) eKLR
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.
Accordingly, the Notice of Withdrawal has merit and allowed. Thus, this petition is hereby marked as withdrawn in entirety.
It is established law that parties have a constitutional right to freely and voluntarily agree to withdraw a matter before court
By dint of public interest element in the petition and being guided by, inter alia, the Supreme Court of Kenya decision in the case of Jasbir Singh Rai & others vs Tarlochan Rai & others (2014) eKLR, parties to bear their own costs of the petition.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the petition is dated 4th September 2025 but the respondents' grounds of opposition are dated 11th November 2023, preceding the petition by almost two years
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutai & 6 others v Inspector General of Police & 9 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3172 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 4th September 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3172/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.