REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU ELC LAND APPEAL CASE NO. E099 OF 2025 JACOB KIBITI KIRERA................................................APPELLANT =VERSUS= FREDRICK KINOTI M’MWONGO........................1ST RESPONDENT STEPHEN LUMBWA..........................................2ND RESPONDENT PETER GITUMA MAINGI...................................3RD RESPONDENT ROSEMARY KATHAMBI....................................4TH RESPONDENT =AND= STANLEY KIOGORA ARTHUR.........................INTERESTED PARTY RULING (EX-TEMPORE) ELCL APPEAL CASE NO. E099 0F 2025 1
page 1 of 3
1. The appellant brought a notice of motion dated 23/2/2026 seeking orders of stay of execution and interlocutory injunction. On 25/2/2026, this court [Eboso J] gave disposal directions on the application. 2. Subsequent to that, the appellant brought a second application dated 18/3/2026 seeking: (i) an order setting aside the preceding directions/orders; and (ii) an interim order of injunction pending the interpartes hearing of the application dated 23/2/2026. 3. On 23/3/2026, this court [Oguttu Mboya J] considered the application dated 18/3/2026 and listed it for hearing on 27/4/2026. In addition, the court [Oguttu Mboya J] granted the appellant a conditional status-quo order. 4. When the two applications came up for hearing on 27/4/2026, counsel for the appellant insisted on prosecuting both applications notwithstanding the facts that: (i) the orders which the application dated 18/3/2026 sought to be reviewed were merely disposal directions relating to the application dated 23/2/2026 and there was nothing substantive to be reviewed at that point; and (ii) the prayer for an interim interlocutory order of injunction was to abide the interpartes hearing of the application dated 23/2/2026 and stood spent at that point. The two applications were subsequently canvassed through written submissions. 5. Today, the appellant, through his counsel, has orally made an application to withdraw the application dated 18/3/2026. He., however, wants costs of the application to abide the outcome of the application dated 23/2/2026. ELCL APPEAL CASE NO. E099 0F 2025 2
page 2 of 3
6. On their part, the respondents concede to the withdrawal but insist that they should be awarded costs of the application because they responded to it and they filed and served written submissions on it. 7. The court has considered the oral plea for withdrawal of the application dated 18/3/2026. In the absence of any objection, the same shall be allowed. On costs, the general principle is that costs follow the event. No proper grounds have been demonstrated to warrant a departure from the general principle. Secondly, the appellant has not justified his proposal that costs of the withdrawn application dated 18/3/2026 should abide the outcome of the application dated 23/2/2026. 8. Consequently, the application dated 18/3/2026 is marked “withdrawn”. The appellant shall bear costs of the application DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. B M EBOSO [MR] ELC JUDGE In the presence of: Mr Mugambi for the Respondents Mr Otieno C for the Applicant/Appellant Court Assistant – Mr. E. Tupet ELCL APPEAL CASE NO. E099 0F 2025 3
page 3 of 3