Nairobi County has asked the High Court to dismiss a petition seeking to stop ongoing cabro paving, pedestrian walkway construction and related public works in the Central Business District (CBD).
In grounds of opposition dated August 24, 2026, the county argued that activist Francis Awino had failed to provide specific evidence of illegality to justify the court orders he is seeking.
Through Okundi & Company Advocates, the county said the application sought broad orders against approvals, contracts, procurement processes and administrative actions without identifying the specific decisions that should be overturned.
The dispute concerns cabro paving, pedestrian walkways and non-motorised transport infrastructure in the CBD, as well as a cooperation agreement between the national government and Nairobi County signed on February 17, 2026.
The county argued that allegations of secrecy, illegality and public danger were insufficient to warrant judicial intervention without evidence of a specific legal or procedural violation.
It further maintained that the orders sought were too broad and could interfere with functions assigned to the county government, including planning, procurement and supervision of public infrastructure projects.
On requests for procurement documents and other public records, the county argued that Awino should follow the procedures provided under access to information and procurement laws.
The county also opposed the inclusion of the joint steering committee established under the cooperation agreement, arguing that it was an administrative coordinating body without a separate legal identity and could not be sued in its own name.
It warned that halting the projects without evidence of an unlawful decision, process or expenditure would undermine the public interest.
The county wants the application, dated July 30, 2026, dismissed with costs.
The opposition follows directions issued by the High Court on August 3, 2026, when Justice Nabil Mokaya Orina directed Nairobi County and the other respondents to file and serve their responses within 21 days of being served with the application.
Awino had sought urgent court intervention, arguing that the works could be completed before the case was determined, potentially rendering any eventual relief ineffective.
In his application, the activist alleges that the construction and related procurement processes were undertaken unlawfully and without compliance with the required procedures.
He claims the works have disrupted pedestrian movement, obstructed walkways and exposed pedestrians and motorists to safety risks.
Awino has also raised concerns over what he describes as inadequate signage, barriers and warning devices at construction sites, while questioning the legality of expenditure on the projects.
The respondents named in the proceedings include the county executive committee member and chief officer responsible for roads, transport, public works and urban development, the joint steering committee and the Attorney General.
The court is yet to determine the dispute based on the positions outlined in the county’s opposition and the activist’s application.
