Nairobi County Hit with £2.3 Million Legal Bill Over Uhuru Park Dispute
Nairobi, 21 June 2026
Nairobi County must pay £2.3 million in legal fees after a court ruled against its attempt to slash a £2.4 million bill to just £100,000. The dispute, tied to the controversial 2021 Uhuru Park renovation, reveals deep governance flaws and financial mismanagement. Taxpayers now foot the bill for a legal battle that could have funded hospitals or roads—raising urgent questions about accountability in Kenya’s capital.
The Court’s Verdict: A Financial Blow to Nairobi County
On 19 June 2026, the High Court of Kenya delivered a landmark ruling ordering Nairobi County to pay Sh311.3 million (approximately £2.3 million) in legal fees to advocate Victor Ogeto Swanya, trading as Swanya & Co. Advocates [1][2]. The judgment, stemming from a protracted legal dispute over the controversial 2021 renovation of Uhuru Park, underscores the financial and governance challenges plaguing Kenya’s capital. The court rejected the county’s attempt to reduce the legal bill from Sh325.3 million to Sh14 million, a reduction of 95.696 per cent, calling the county’s efforts ‘weak half-hearted attempts to resile from an agreement’ [1]. The ruling also mandated payment of interest at court rates and additional legal costs, further straining the county’s already stretched budget.
A Legal Saga Rooted in Controversial Infrastructure
The dispute traces back to 2021, when the Communist Party of Kenya filed a constitutional petition challenging the legality of the Uhuru Park renovation project [1]. The park, one of Nairobi’s most iconic public spaces, became a focal point of contention after the Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS) hired Swanya & Co. Advocates to represent its interests. The initial legal fee note presented by the advocate was a staggering Sh1.17 billion, a figure the court later noted would ‘raise eyebrows in any quarters’ [1]. Through negotiations, this was reduced to Sh325.3 million via a fee agreement dated 4 March 2022. However, the county’s legal department later reassessed the fees, arguing the original amount was ‘utterly excessive’ and slashed the payable sum to Sh14 million [1][2]. The High Court, in its ruling, found that the county had failed to utilise legal channels to challenge the fee agreement under the Advocates Act, leaving it bound by the original terms [1].
Governance Failures and the Cost to Taxpayers
The court’s decision highlights systemic governance failures within Nairobi County. Documents presented during the trial revealed that while a payment voucher for Sh90 million was prepared and approved by the Controller of Budget for withdrawal from the County Revenue Fund, only Sh85 million was released—and allegedly diverted for other purposes [2]. The county’s failure to file a counterclaim to challenge the fee agreement further weakened its position, resulting in the full Sh311.3 million judgment [1][2]. The court’s observations on the case were scathing: ‘Despite the law granting the County Government a leeway to challenge the fee agreement, this opportunity was not taken’ [1]. The ruling raises critical questions about the management of public funds, particularly in a county where infrastructure projects like roads, hospitals, and street lighting remain underfunded [2].
Broader Implications for Refugee Communities in Kenya
While the Uhuru Park legal battle may seem confined to Nairobi’s urban governance, its repercussions extend to Kenya’s refugee populations, particularly those in Turkana County’s Kakuma and Kalobeyei camps. The financial mismanagement exposed by this case reflects a broader pattern of resource misallocation that could impact national policies affecting refugee services [GPT]. For instance, Turkana County, which hosts over 200,000 refugees, has long grappled with underfunded infrastructure and strained public services, a situation exacerbated by the county’s reliance on both host and refugee communities sharing limited resources [GPT]. The Sh311.3 million legal bill—equivalent to the annual budget of a mid-sized Kenyan hospital—could have funded critical services such as healthcare, education, or water supply in refugee settlements [alert! ‘Exact refugee service budgets not provided in sources’][1][2].