Nairobi County submitted a formal request to the High Court to dismiss a petition that seeks to stop cabro paving, pedestrian walkway construction and related public works in the city’s Central Business District.

The petition was filed by activist Francis Awino on July 30, 2026, alleging that the projects are unlawful, breach procurement rules and create safety hazards for pedestrians and motorists.

In an opposition dated August 24, 2026, the county argued that Awino’s application does not identify any specific decision, contract or procurement process that should be set aside, making the sought judicial orders overly broad.

Okundi & Company Advocates, representing the county, said the petitioner failed to establish a clear legal basis for a judicial review, including orders to halt the works or compel officials to act.

The county highlighted a cooperation agreement signed on February 17, 2026, between the national government and Nairobi County, noting that the joint steering committee created under the agreement is an administrative body without separate legal personality and therefore cannot be sued in its own name.

County officials maintain that allegations of secrecy, illegality and public danger lack a direct link to any statutory breach, and that halting the projects without such proof would undermine the public interest.

The county advised that requests for procurement records or other public information should be pursued through the appropriate access‑to‑information and procurement law mechanisms rather than through a sweeping court application.

Awino’s application also raised concerns about inadequate signage, barriers and warning devices at the construction sites, claiming these deficiencies expose the public to safety hazards.

The High Court had directed Nairobi County and other respondents on August 3, 2026, to file and serve their responses within 21 days of being served with the petition; the county’s dismissal request satisfies that deadline.

Nairobi County seeks dismissal of the July 30 petition with costs, arguing that the proposed orders would effectively place the court in charge of functions reserved for the county government, such as planning, procurement and supervision of infrastructure projects.