1. The plaintiff through Amasakha and Company Advocates instituted the instant suit by an Originating Summons dated 24th March 2025 claiming to have acquired two parcels of land namely LR Numbers Nandi/Koibarak ‘B’/781 and 815 by adverse possession.
2. The defendants through Rotich, Langat and Partners Advocates opposed the originating summons by the replying affidavit sworn on 30th June 2026 by the 1st defendant and the preliminary objection of even date.
3. Ms Adeya instructed by Amasakha learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of this court to the plaintiff’s notice of withdrawal dated 22nd July 2026 duly served as shown in the affidavit duly filed. She implored the court to allow the withdrawal of this suit.
4. Mr Moses Rotich Langat confirmed service of the notice of withdrawal and has no objection to the withdrawal of the suit subject to costs to the defendants. That the plaintiff had previously filed Kapsabet ELCC NO. E032 of 2023, Eldoret High Court Civil Appeal Nos, 457 of 1996 and 488 of 1996 which were withdrawn. That to avoid misuse of court process and resources, the plaintiff be ordered to bear costs of the suit.
5. Ms Adeya learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the suit can be withdrawn with costs to the defendants.
6. In the foregone, is the withdrawal of suit merited?
7. Notably, it is common ground that the suit be withdraw with costs to the defendants.
8. On that score, this court is guided by the decision in the case of Robert Mutiso Lelli vs Kenya Medical Training College & 2 others {2021} KESC 21 (KLR) where the the Supreme Court of Kenya remarked;
‘ 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withdraw such a matter, if he deems so fit to do………………Furthermore no prejudice will be caused……to have the proceedings withdrawn.’
9. In the premises, the applicant has the right to have the suit withdrawn and the parties have agreed that costs be borne by the plaintiff hence, the notice of withdrawal dated 22nd July 2026 is meritorious herein.
10. Accordingly, the instant suit commenced by way of an originating summons dated 24th March 2025 in entirety, is hereby marked as withdrawn with costs to the defendants. So, case closed.
11. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED VIRTUALLY this 22nd day of SEPTEMBER 2026.
G M A ONGONDO
JUDGE
PRESENT;
Ms Adeya instructed by Mr Amasakha learned counsel for the plaintiff
Mr Moses Rotich learned counsel for the defendants
Walter Kipkorir, Court Assistant
2. The defendants through Rotich, Langat and Partners Advocates opposed the originating summons by the replying affidavit sworn on 30th June 2026 by the 1st defendant and the preliminary objection of even date.
3. Ms Adeya instructed by Amasakha learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of this court to the plaintiff’s notice of withdrawal dated 22nd July 2026 duly served as shown in the affidavit duly filed. She implored the court to allow the withdrawal of this suit.
4. Mr Moses Rotich Langat confirmed service of the notice of withdrawal and has no objection to the withdrawal of the suit subject to costs to the defendants. That the plaintiff had previously filed Kapsabet ELCC NO. E032 of 2023, Eldoret High Court Civil Appeal Nos, 457 of 1996 and 488 of 1996 which were withdrawn. That to avoid misuse of court process and resources, the plaintiff be ordered to bear costs of the suit.
5. Ms Adeya learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the suit can be withdrawn with costs to the defendants.
6. In the foregone, is the withdrawal of suit merited?
7. Notably, it is common ground that the suit be withdraw with costs to the defendants.
8. On that score, this court is guided by the decision in the case of Robert Mutiso Lelli vs Kenya Medical Training College & 2 others {2021} KESC 21 (KLR) where the the Supreme Court of Kenya remarked;
‘ 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 fit to do………………Furthermore no prejudice will be caused……to have the proceedings withdrawn.’
9. In the premises, the applicant has the right to have the suit withdrawn and the parties have agreed that costs be borne by the plaintiff hence, the notice of withdrawal dated 22nd July 2026 is meritorious herein.
10. Accordingly, the instant suit commenced by way of an originating summons dated 24th March 2025 in entirety, is hereby marked as withdrawn with costs to the defendants. So, case closed.
11. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED VIRTUALLY this 22nd day of SEPTEMBER 2026.
G M A ONGONDO
JUDGE
PRESENT;
Ms Adeya instructed by Mr Amasakha learned counsel for the plaintiff
Mr Moses Rotich learned counsel for the defendants
Walter Kipkorir, Court Assistant