Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 4389 (KLR)

Yego & 3 others v County Government of Nandi (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4389 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 July 2026
GOG M A Ongondo
323 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet, delivered by Hon. G M A Ongondo, Judge, on 8th July 2026, dealt with a Notice of Motion application dated 26th May 2025 by the applicants/plaintiffs, through Mutta and Company Advocates LLP, which sought interim injunctive relief restraining the defendant/respondent from further encroaching upon or evicting them from the suit properties known as LR Nos. 7830/232, 7830/231 and 7830/233 pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. When the application came up for hearing, Mr. Tallam, counsel for the applicants, informed the court that the applicants no longer wished to pursue the application and sought to withdraw it with no orders as to costs. Mr. A. Kogo, counsel for the respondent, did not object to the withdrawal. The court observed that a party's right to withdraw a matter cannot be taken away, citing Robert M. Lelli vs Kenya Medical Training College & 2 others (2021) KESC 21 (KLR), and further relied on the Supreme Court of Kenya decision in Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others vs Turlochan Singh Rai & 4 others (2014) eKLR together with the proviso to Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya, on costs. The court held that the applicants were entitled to withdraw the application and marked it as wholly withdrawn with no orders as to costs. The main suit was not determined and remains pending.

Key legal issues

#
01

Right of a party to withdraw an application

Holding

The applicants were entitled to withdraw their application; the court marked it withdrawn with no orders as to costs, consistent with the right of withdrawal and the costs proviso to Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Reasoning

Counsel for the applicants sought withdrawal with no orders as to costs and counsel for the respondent did not object to the withdrawal itself. The court noted the established right of a party to withdraw a matter, cited the Supreme Court decision in Jasbir Singh Rai and the proviso to Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act on costs, and concluded the applicants were entitled to withdraw the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party's right to withdraw a matter or application cannot be taken away.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 26th May 2025 is marked as wholly withdrawn with no orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction over the pending suit; Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya (proviso to Section 27(1) on costs)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Yego & 3 others v County Government of Nandi (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4389 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4389/eng@2026-07-08

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