NYS: Seeks Dismissal of Nakuru Road Deal Petition Over Jurisdiction

• The National Youth Service (NYS) seeks to dismiss a petition challenging its Sh2.1 billion road deal with Nakuru County Government.
• Four Nakuru residents filed petitions alleging lack of public participation and procedural bypasses in the November 7, 2025, MoU.
• The Attorney General argues the High Court lacks jurisdiction, citing prematurity and non-compliance with mandatory alternative dispute resolution under the Intergovernmental Relations Act.
• NYS claims the deal is exempt from standard procurement procedures and that petitioners lack standing to challenge internal governance.
• Petitioners also raised concerns about a 50% upfront payment requirement despite the county's outstanding debts to other contractors.

The Attorney General's office maintains that the petition fails to comply with mandatory constitutional and statutory provisions, specifically highlighting the Intergovernmental Relations Act.

The National Youth Service (NYS) is seeking to have a petition challenging its Sh2.1 billion road construction agreement with the Nakuru County Government dismissed. The controversial deal, formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on November 7, 2025, outlines NYS's role in executing road projects, including the maintenance of feeder roads under the county's Imarisha Barabara programme.

Four Nakuru residents — Simon Nasieku, Benson Macharia, Kepha Omuyoma, and Paul Muchiri — initiated legal action before Judge Julius Nangea, filing two related petitions that are slated for consolidation. Their primary contention revolves around an alleged lack of public participation in the agreement's formulation. Following the filing of these petitions in December of the previous year, the court temporarily suspended the MoU's implementation pending the resolution of the case. The court, through Justice Julius Nangea, temporarily suspended the MoU's implementation and issued conservatory orders until a mention date on January 19, 2026.

In a significant legal maneuver, the National Youth Service, represented by the Attorney General's office, has lodged a Preliminary Objection (PO) urging the court to dismiss the petition with costs. State Counsel Prisca Adomeyon, arguing on behalf of the AG, asserts that the High Court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case, contending that the petition was filed prematurely.

The Attorney General's office maintains that the petition fails to comply with mandatory constitutional and statutory provisions, specifically highlighting the Intergovernmental Relations Act. This legislation, according to the AG, mandates that disputes arising from intergovernmental arrangements must first undergo alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before judicial intervention is sought. Furthermore, the AG argues that the petition does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against NYS, characterizing the agreement as a legitimate inter-governmental collaboration.

The Attorney General's arguments extend to the nature of the procurement process itself, asserting that the Sh2.1 billion road deal is explicitly exempt from standard commercial procurement procedures under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. This exemption, if upheld, would significantly undermine one of the petitioners' core grievances regarding procedural irregularities.

Additionally, the AG challenges the petitioners' legal standing to question the internal administrative processes and Council approvals of the National Youth Service. Adomeyon contends that, according to the NYS Act, compliance with internal corporate governance is a matter strictly between the statutory body and its appointing authority, and therefore cannot form the basis of a constitutional petition brought by third-party private actors. The AG concludes that the petition falls short of the established legal threshold for constitutional challenges, relying on general, vague, and unsubstantiated allegations without clearly demonstrating how NYS breached specific constitutional provisions.

The petitioners, in their challenge to the National Youth Service Nakuru MoU, contend that the agreement bypassed crucial legal procedures and should not be operationalized. They accuse the county government of flouting established laws and circumventing the County Assembly's decision-making authority, thereby undermining public participation in government projects in Kenya.

A significant concern raised by the residents pertains to the financial implications of the deal, specifically the requirement for the county to disburse 50 percent of the contract value before operations commence. This is particularly contentious given the county's alleged failure to settle pending bills owed to existing contractors. Prior to initiating court proceedings, petitioners Nasieku and Macharia had formally written to the Controller of Budget, urging a halt to any requests from the Nakuru County Government stemming from the MoU, arguing that the agreement did not follow due procedure and could disrupt planned development activities outlined in the Annual Development Plan 2025.

This case provides insight into the procedural and jurisdictional challenges involved in litigating intergovernmental agreements and public procurement in Kenya. Lawyers should note the AG's arguments regarding the mandatory nature of alternative dispute resolution under the Intergovernmental Relations Act and potential exemptions from standard procurement procedures, which are critical considerations when advising clients on challenging or defending such deals.

Source: Original reporting via The Standard