John Kimely Birech v Alice Chepketer Chemiron & 2 others

1. The applicant through MB LAW Advocates LLP commenced an application by way of Notice of motion dated 21 st July 2026 seeking the following orders; a) That pending inter partes hearing and determination of this application, conservatory orders so issue restraining the Respondents, their agents, advocates and/or servants from coercing, compelling or causing the 1 st Respondent’s husband, Chebirech Arap Chemiron to execute, sign of register any documents relating to land title No. Kapsabet Municipality/116, including but not limited to a Power of Attorney in favour of the 1 st Respondent or any transfer documents in relation to the suit land. b) That pending the hearing and determination of the application herein, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Respondents from registering, transferring, charging, or in any way dealing with Land Title No. Kapsabet Municipality/116 without the express written consent of all the surviving children of Kibirech Arap Chemiron and Alice Chemiron. KAPSABET ELCLMISC. E012 OF 2026 RULING 2

page 2 of 5

2. The foundational basis of the application is the appicant’s supporting affidavit of eighteen paragraphs sworn on even date and seventeen grounds, inter alia; a) The Applicant is a son to Kibirech Arap Chemiron, who is the registered proprietor of Land Title No. Kapsabet Municipality/116. b) The said Kibirech Arap Chemiron is elderly, aged 99 years while his wife, the 1 st Respondent is 78 years old. That owing to his old age, Kibirech Arap Chemiron is frail, of ill health and does not fully comprehend matters with ease. c) That the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein have taken advantage of the Applicant’s parents’ situation and now want to compel Kibirech Arap Chemiron to sign the power of attorney in favour of the 1 st Respondent so that they can fraudulently dispose of the property. 3. It is noteworthy that a Notice of withdrawal of the application was filed on even date by learned counsel for the applicant. KAPSABET ELCLMISC. E012 OF 2026 RULING 3

page 3 of 5

4. Mr. Tonje learned counsel for the applicant informed the court that the application has not been served on the respondents. That the subject matter is spent 5. So, is the withdrawal of the application meritorious? 6. By the Notice of withdrawal, the applicant is seeking to withdraw the application with no orders as to costs. Indeed, the application has not been served and there is no response thereto. 7. In the case of Robert Mutiso Lelli vs Kenya Medical Training College & 2 others {2021} KESC 21 (KLR), the Supreme Court of Kenya held; ‘……a party’s liberty to withdraw a matter cannot be taken away and the court has to allow a party who has approached the court to withdraw such a matter, if he deems so fit to do………………Furthermore no prejudice will be caused……to have the proceedings withdrawn.’ 8. Clearly, the applicant has the right to have the application withdrawn as the respondent who has not replied to the same will not be prejudiced in the circumstances. I find the said notice of withdrawal merited. KAPSABET ELCLMISC. E012 OF 2026 RULING 4

page 4 of 5

9. Thus, the application dated 21st July 2026 is hereby marked as withdrawn in entirety with no orders as to costs and this case closed accordingly. 10. It is so ordered. Dated and Delivered Virtually this 21st day of September 2026. HON. G M A ONGONDO JUDGE In the presence of; 1. Walter Kipkorir, Court Assistant KAPSABET ELCLMISC. E012 OF 2026 RULING 5

page 5 of 5