Gervase Murerwa & 9 Others v County Government of Meru & 9 Others

The bottom line

Ten Meru traders withdrew their court challenge over the Gakoromone Market relocation, leaving the underlying dispute unresolved and open to refiling.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#

This ex-tempore ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru disposed of a petition filed on or about 7 September 2026 by ten petitioners challenging the County Government of Meru's decision to temporarily relocate traders from Gakoromone Market to pave way for construction of a new market. The petitioners had also filed a notice of motion dated 7 September 2026 seeking interlocutory orders, which was scheduled for hearing on the date of the ruling. Before the application could be heard, the petitioners orally prayed that the petition be marked 'withdrawn with no order as to costs'. There was no objection from the respondents, who were absent, and no request for costs was made. The court, per B M Eboso, ELC Judge, granted the oral plea, marked the petition 'withdrawn with no order as to costs' and ordered the file closed. The ruling contains no determination on the merits, no findings of fact or law, and no citation of authorities or statutes. The underlying dispute over the relocation of Gakoromone Market traders remains unresolved and the petitioners are free to re-litigate the matter, the withdrawal having been without a determination on the merits.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

1.Whether the petitioners' oral plea to withdraw the petition should be granted

Key legal issues

#

Legal principles established

#

Court orders

#

1.The oral plea to withdraw the petition is granted and the petition is marked 'withdrawn with no order as to costs'
2.The file shall be closed

The bench

#

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

BE

B M EbosoJ

majority

Wrote the judgment

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.

In the circumstances, the oral plea is granted and this petition is marked “withdrawn with no order as to costs”. The file shall be closed.

p. 3Disposition - withdrawal of petition

Issues in the judgment

#

minor

Case number dated 2026 and judgment dated 21 September 2026 appear to be future dates

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Related briefs

#

ELCPartially Allowed2026-10-08

Francis Kagumba Gitonga & Another t/a Markton Bulk Suppliers v Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & Others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Proposed 4th Defendant/Applicant)

ELCDismissed2026-10-08

Ahmed Abdi Abdullahi v Abdi Nur Abdi

A Kenyan court refused to pause a land judgment because the appellant showed no real evidence of the loss he claimed.

ELCDismissed2026-10-08

Obadiah Nguy o Kamwalo (Suing as the legal representative and administrator of the Estate of Kamwalo Kitai Nguyo) v Benson Kimanthi Kikuvi & Mutete Kamwalo; Peter Mwau Syovo (Intended Interested Party)

The Makueni Environment and Land Court refused to join a man claiming land ownership to the case because he produced no real evidence of his stake.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gervase Murerwa & 9 Others v County Government of Meru & 9 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Land Petition No. E019 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5516/eng@2026-09-21

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