Kemboi & another v Tai & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5392 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 5392 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAPSABET ENVIRONMENT AND LAND MISCELLANEOUS CASE E016 OF 2026 GMA ONGONDO, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 BETWEEN JULUIS KIPNGETICH KEMBOI ..................................................... 1ST APPLICANT JOHN KIPLAGAT KEMBOI ............................................................ 2ND APPLICANT AND BENJAMIN TAI ................................................................................... RESPONDENT AND THE LAND REGISTRAR, NANDI COUNTY .................... INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. By the application dated 15th July 2026 commenced under, inter alia, sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya, the two applicants through Cheruiyot Melly and Associates Advocates are seeking the following principal orders; a. This Honourable Court be pleased to call for, examine and review the record, proceedings, judgment and decree of Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kapsabet in Land Dispute Tribunal No. 26 of 2009, delivered on the 22nd day of June 2011 and issued on the 8th day of October 2012. b. This Honourable Court be pleased to review, rectify and/or amend the said decree to reect and declare that the applicants, Julius Kipngetich Kemboi and John Kiplagat Kemboi, are the registered ‘OWNERS’, and not mere occupiers of all that parcel of land known as NANDI/ CHEMASE/754. c. An order do issue directing the Land Registrar, Nandi County, to register the applicants as the proprietors and owners of the land parcel NANDI/CHEMASE/754 upon presentation of the decree as reviewed, rectied and/or amended pursuant to prayer (b) herein-above. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5392/eng@2026-09-02 1
page 1 of 2
2. Notably, the respondent and the interested party have not responded to the application. 3. The applicants have sought to withdraw the application against the respondent and the interested party with no orders as to costs as per the Notice of withdrawal dated 28th August 2026 herein. 4. In that regard, is the withdrawal of the application merited? 5. In light of the character of the application, the subsequent notice thereof and the Constitutional imperative that justice shall not be delayed, this Honourable Court is guided by the case of Robert Mutiso Lelli vs Kenya Medical Training College & 2 others {2021} KESC 21 KLR where the Supreme Court of Kenya held; ‘Indeed 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 t to do……………… Furthermore no prejudice will be caused……to have the proceedings withdrawn.’ 6. In the premises, the said notice of withdrawal is meritorious. Indeed, the applicants have the liberty to have the instant proceedings withdrawn as the respondent and the interested party who have not responded to the application will not be prejudiced thereby. 7. A fortiori, the entire application dated 15th July 2026 is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs and this case closed accordingly. 8. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026. HON. G M A ONGONDO JUDGE In the presence of; Kariuki, Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5392/eng@2026-09-02 2
page 2 of 2