Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherELC Case No. E009 of 2023

David Mururu M'Itaru v Paul Mathew Itaru & 5 others

Environment and Land Court
7 October 2026
BEB M Eboso
312 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 Meru landowner abandoned his land case mid-trial and must pay the government defendants' costs, ending the dispute without a judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ex-tempore ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru (B M Eboso, ELC Judge) records the withdrawal of a land dispute at trial. The matter, ELC Case No. E009 of 2023, was scheduled for hearing on 7 October 2026. PW1 testified and was cross-examined, but before the plaintiff could take the stand as PW2, his counsel (Ms Muthamia) made an oral application to withdraw the primary suit, offering that the plaintiff would bear its costs. The 1st - 3rd defendants (Paul Mathew Itaru, Samuel Mwia Itaru and Beatrice Akui Itaru), through Mr Otieno C, did not oppose the withdrawal on those terms and in turn orally sought to withdraw their counterclaim dated 7/12/2023 with no order as to costs; the plaintiff did not object. The 4th - 6th defendants (the Land Registrar, Meru County; the Sub County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Tigania West/East; and the Hon Attorney General), through Ms E. Wairimu, conceded to both withdrawals but insisted on being awarded costs of the primary suit. The court nonetheless ordered that the plaintiff bear the costs of the primary suit, marked the primary suit withdrawn, marked the counterclaim withdrawn with no order as to costs, and closed the file. No authorities were cited and no reasons were given for declining the state defendants' costs request.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the plaintiff's oral application to withdraw the primary suit should be allowed and on what costs terms
  2. 2.Whether the 1st - 3rd defendants' counterclaim dated 7/12/2023 should be withdrawn and on what costs terms

Key legal issues

#
01

Withdrawal of the primary suit

Holding

The plaintiff's oral application to withdraw the primary suit was allowed, with the plaintiff bearing the costs

Reasoning

Counsel for the plaintiff made an oral application to withdraw the primary suit, offering to bear its costs. The 1st - 3rd defendants did not oppose on those terms. The 4th - 6th defendants conceded to the withdrawal but sought costs; the court nonetheless ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the primary suit.

p. 2
02

Withdrawal of the counterclaim

Holding

The 1st - 3rd defendants' counterclaim dated 7/12/2023 was withdrawn with no order as to costs

Reasoning

Counsel for the 1st - 3rd defendants orally sought to withdraw the counterclaim dated 7/12/2023 with no order as to costs. The plaintiff did not object. The court marked the counterclaim withdrawn with no order as to costs and closed the file.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A plaintiff may withdraw a primary suit orally at trial, with costs following the agreed terms of withdrawal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The primary suit by David Mururu M'Itaru is marked 'withdrawn'
  2. 2.David Mururu shall bear costs of the primary suit
  3. 3.The counterclaim by the 1st - 3rd defendants is marked 'withdrawn with no order as to costs'
  4. 4.The file is marked 'case closed'

The bench

#

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

BE
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (land and environment disputes)

Relief refused

#

Costs of the primary suit against the 4th - 6th defendants

The 4th - 6th defendants sought costs but the court ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the primary suit

p. 2

Costs

David Mururu shall bear costs of the primary suit; the counterclaim was withdrawn with no order as to costs.

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.

The primary suit by David Mururu M'Itaru is marked “withdrawn”.
p. 2Withdrawal of primary suit
David Mururu shall bear costs of the primary suit.
p. 2Costs of the primary suit
The counterclaim by the 1st – 3rd defendants is marked “withdrawn with no order as to costs”.
p. 2Withdrawal of counterclaim
This file is marked “case closed”
p. 2Final disposition

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Delivery date printed as 7 October 2026, which post-dates the 2023 filing and may be a typographical error for 2025

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Mururu M'Itaru v Paul Mathew Itaru & 5 others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. E009 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6273/eng@2026-10-07

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