Magiri v M’Ikulu (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E011 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3733 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru landowner's attempt to lift an inhibition on their land was withdrawn, and they were ordered to pay the other side's legal costs.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 plaintiff's oral application to withdraw the notice of motion dated 18/6/2025 should be allowed
- 2.Whether the defendant, who filed a response and did not oppose withdrawal, should be awarded costs
Key legal issues
#Withdrawal of an application with costs to the unopposing respondent
Where a party orally withdraws an application and the opposing party, though not opposing the withdrawal, had filed a response, the withdrawing party bears the costs of the application
The court took into account that the plaintiff's counsel orally applied to withdraw the motion, that the defendant did not oppose the withdrawal, and that the defendant had filed a response to the application and thus incurred costs. On that basis the court allowed the withdrawal but required the applicant to bear the costs. The ruling is an ex-tempore procedural direction with no extensive reasoning on law or evidence.
Legal principles established
#Court orders
#- 1.The oral plea to withdraw the application dated 18/6/2025 was allowed
- 2.The application dated 18/6/2025 was marked 'withdrawn'
- 3.The applicant (plaintiff) was ordered to bear the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (not expressly stated in the ex-tempore ruling)
Relief refused
#Order lifting the inhibition registered against land parcel Kianjai/Thau/525
The plaintiff orally withdrew the application before it was argued on the merits; the substantive relief was therefore never determined
Costs
The applicant shall bear costs of the application dated 18/6/2025
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.
Taking all the above into account, the oral plea to withdraw the application will be and is hereby allowed.
The applicant shall bear costs of the application dated 18/6/2025 which is now marked “withdrawn”.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling records the application as coming up for hearing on 2/6/2026, which post-dates the motion date of 18/6/2025 but the delivery date is 10/6/2026; dates appear internally inconsistent (possibly typographical)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Magiri v M’Ikulu (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E011 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3733 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (relates to land parcel Kianjai/Thau/525). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3733/eng@2026-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.