AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherOriginating Summons dated 9th November 2022· [2025] KEELC 3786 (KLR)
Saina & 2 others (As Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina arap Rarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus (Deceased)) v Bundotich (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E034 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3786 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This was an originating summons dated 9th November 2022 before the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet, in which the applicants, as administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina Arap Tarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus (Deceased), sought a declaration that the registered proprietor's interest in land parcel Nandi/Sigot/47 be extinguished, and an order vesting the whole suit land on the applicants. Before the hearing of the substantive claim, the plaintiff's counsel, Mr Kipkosigei Choge, applied to withdraw the suit on the ground that the grant in respect of the estate had been revoked in the succession proceedings, which had an impact on the claim. The court, G M A Ongondo J, observed that a plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit and that the court has a discretion to allow the withdrawal, applying Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute v Lagoon Development Ltd (2015) eKLR, and noted, following Priscilla Nyambura Njue v Geovhem Middle East Ltd & Kenya Bureau of Standards (Interested party) (2021) eKLR, that withdrawal of a suit is itself the suit's end. Finding the application merited, the court marked the suit as withdrawn with no order of costs. The substantive claim was never determined on the merits and no decision below was reviewed.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the application for withdrawal of the suit should be allowed
Holding
The application was merited and the suit was marked as withdrawn with no order of costs
Reasoning
Counsel for the plaintiff sought withdrawal because the grant in respect of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus had been revoked, which impacted the claim. The court noted that a plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit and the court has a discretion to allow it, citing Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute v Lagoon Development Ltd, and that withdrawal is itself the suit's end, citing Priscilla Nyambura Njue v Geovhem Middle East Ltd. On that basis the withdrawal was allowed.
p. 2
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit, and the court has a discretion to allow such withdrawal
- Withdrawal of a suit is itself the suit's end
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is marked as withdrawn with no order of costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court); the judgment does not expressly cite the provision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Saina & 2 others (As Administrators of the Estate of Kipsaina Tarus alias Kipsaina arap Rarus alias Kipsaina s/o Tarus (Deceased)) v Bundotich (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E034 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3786 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 9th November 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3786/eng@2025-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.