Saina & 2 others (As Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus – Deceased) v Achina (Environment & Land Case E032 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3757 (KLR) (7 May 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3757 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAPSABET ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE E032 OF 2022 GMA ONGONDO, J MAY 7, 2025 BETWEEN MIKE KIPNGETICH SAINA ............................................................ 1ST APPLICANT SAINAH KIPLAGAT ELIJAH .......................................................... 2ND APPLICANT HOSEA KIPROP SAINA .................................................................. 3RD APPLICANT AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF KIPSAINA TARUS ALIAS KIPSAINA ARAP TARUS ALIAS KIPSAINA S/O TARUS – DECEASED AND KIMUREI ARAP ACHINA ................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The plaintifis’ counsel, Mr Kipkosigei Choge notified and sought to withdraw the instant suit on the basis that the grant in respect of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus-Deceased, was revoked hence, an impact on the claim herein. 2. The suit was originated by way of an originating summons dated 9th November 2022 for orders infra; a. That this Honourable Court declares that the Registered Proprietor’s Interest, his Succession in title, presumed Administrators of the Estate of the registered proprietor, or whomsoever claiming through him that may be and or may have been registered as the proprietor of the whole Nandi/Sigot/3 occupied, possessed and used by the Applicants, be extinguished. b. That the Honourable Court be pleased further to order and direct that the whole Suit Land Nandi /Sigot/3 be vested on the Applicants ((as Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus – Deceased). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3757/eng@2025-05-07 1
page 1 of 2
3. Clearly, there is no response to the originating summons not duly served. 4. Notably, it is the right of the plaintifis to withdrawal the suit and the court has the discretion to allow it; see Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute-vs-Lagoon Development Ltd (2015) eKLR. 5. Further, I associate myself with Mativo J (Now, JA) in the case of Priscilla Nyambura Njue-vs-Geovhem Middle East Ltd, Kenya Bureau of Standards (Interested party) (2021) eKLR that the withdrawal of suit is itself it’s end. 6. In the present case, I find the application for withdrawal of the instant suit merited. 7. A fortiori, this suit is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs. 8. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY 2025. G M A ONGONDO JUDGE Present; Mr K. Choge learned counsel for the plaintifis Mr Walter Kipkorir, court assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3757/eng@2025-05-07 2
page 2 of 2