The High Court has certified as urgent a petition challenging the cooperation deal between the national government and Nairobi County. The move is seen as the first legal challenge to the agreement inked on Tuesday at State House.
Justice Bahati Mwamuyi on Wednesday directed that the case be heard on March 16. The petition questions the constitutionality of the deal signed by President William Ruto and Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja.
Filed by two Kenyan citizens on February 18, the petitioners argue that the agreement undermines devolution. They claim it allows the national government to intervene directly in county functions without proper constitutional safeguards.
The court recognized the public interest and potential impact on Nairobi residents, certifying the petition as urgent. The certification enables faster handling given the implications for governance in the capital city.
The Milimani Court ordered petitioners to serve respondents and interested parties by close of business on February 20. The move ensures all stakeholders are formally notified and can respond in time.
Interested parties listed include the Council of Governors and the Office of the Auditor General. Their participation is crucial given the agreement touches on county oversight and accountability matters.
Respondents have until February 27 to enter appearances and file responses. Subsequent submissions and rejoinders are scheduled for March 13, ahead of the main hearing on March 16.
The petitioners are seeking conservatory orders to halt the implementation of the agreement. They also request empanelment under Article 165(4) of the Constitution, which governs the handling of urgent matters by the court.
The Tuesday deal was presented by President Ruto as a framework for collaboration. It covers infrastructure, health, revenue collection, and urban management within Nairobi County.
Some critics argue that Governor Sakaja was effectively ceding county functions to the national government. Officials, however, insist the deal is not a takeover, but a structured collaboration to enhance city performance.
The agreement focuses on four key sectors, including water and sewerage management. Authorities say the cooperation will improve service delivery, urban planning, and overall efficiency in Nairobi.
This case marks an early legal test for the Ruto administration’s approach to devolved governance. Observers note it could set a precedent on the limits of national-county collaborations.
As the hearing date approaches, attention is likely to remain high. Citizens, legal experts, and political analysts are closely watching developments in the case that could redefine intergovernmental agreements.
The High Court’s urgency certification signals the judiciary’s awareness of the potential stakes. How the case unfolds may influence future negotiations between the national government and other counties.
The petition underscores ongoing debates on devolution, autonomy, and the balance of power between Kenya’s national and county governments. The outcome could shape governance practices nationwide.
With submissions, rejoinders, and responses now scheduled, the spotlight is on Milimani Court. The process will determine whether the Ruto-Sakaja deal proceeds or faces significant legal constraints.
The case also reflects broader public scrutiny of agreements affecting city governance. Nairobi residents and civil society groups have expressed interest in the implications of the cooperation deal.
As March 16 nears, the judiciary faces the challenge of balancing constitutional principles with practical governance needs. The court’s ruling will likely reverberate beyond Nairobi.
The petitioners’ move shows how citizens can invoke legal mechanisms to challenge government actions. It also raises questions about accountability, transparency, and adherence to Kenya’s constitutional framework.
The unfolding legal battle highlights the tension between collaboration and autonomy in Kenya’s devolved system. The court’s decision will clarify the permissible scope of national involvement in county matters.
In the meantime, Nairobi County continues to operate under the agreement’s framework. Officials stress that daily operations are unaffected while the matter awaits judicial determination.
The High Court’s intervention has drawn attention from legal experts and political commentators. Many view the case as a litmus test for devolution under the Ruto administration.
Observers note that similar cooperation agreements with other counties may come under scrutiny. The ruling could establish a benchmark for future intergovernmental partnerships.
The petitioners insist that the agreement, if implemented unchecked, could erode constitutional protections for counties. They emphasize that proper legislative oversight is crucial.
Both sides are preparing submissions, with legal teams expected to debate the limits and intentions of the deal. The arguments will focus on constitutional interpretation and governance principles.
The outcome may redefine national-county relations, especially in high-stakes sectors like infrastructure and urban management. The case is likely to be closely followed by policymakers and citizens alike.
With urgency certified, the court has ensured the matter will not languish. The March hearing promises robust arguments, setting the stage for a potentially landmark decision on devolution.
