Court Halts Gikomba Market Demolition in Nairobi After Legal Challenge

An Environment and Land Court at Milimani has ordered a temporary stop to planned demolitions and evictions affecting parts of Gikomba Market, Shaurimoyo River Bank, and adjacent Nairobi River settlements after petitioners challenged enforcement actions they say threaten homes, businesses, and community facilities.

The court, on March 4, 2026, certified the case urgent and directed all parties to maintain the status quo while it prepares to hear full arguments. Justice Lilian Gathoni issued the order following a certificate of urgency filed late last week. The pause covers enforcement actions by Nairobi City County and the Water Resources Authority, which had given a 14-day notice that lapsed on March 3.

At the heart of the dispute are residential and commercial structures built along the banks of the Nairobi River. Authorities contend that the buildings encroach upon a 30-metre riparian reserve established to protect river corridors. The notice cited potential environmental harm as justification.

In filings before the court, the petitioners said they and thousands of others have lawful proprietary interests in the land. They state that plots were allocated by the now-defunct Nairobi City Council around 2002, and that they have since paid stand premiums, rents, rates, and other statutory charges associated with formal land allotments. The filings argue that over the past 25 years, residents and traders have developed homes, businesses, schools, clinics, and other social infrastructure on these plots.

Lawyers representing the River Bank Settlement Scheme and other combined groups described the demolition notice as arbitrary and procedurally unfair. They argued that the blanket application of a 30-metre riparian boundary is not grounded in disclosed cadastral surveys, hydrological studies, or environmental impact assessments. The petitioners also alleged selective enforcement, noting that similar developments on the opposite banks remain unchallenged, and that enforcement efforts disproportionately target low-income residents and traders.

The legal challenge goes further, asserting a raft of constitutional breaches. The petitioners argued that the enforcement actions would violate rights to property, adequate housing, fair administrative action, and other safeguards under Kenya’s Constitution. They are asking the court not only to block demolitions and evictions but also to declare them unconstitutional and to affirm petitioners’ proprietary rights. They seek general damages for the alleged violations if the court finds the state’s conduct unlawful.

In court, the petitioners’ lawyers requested a permanent injunction preventing respondents, their agents, and agents of the state from interfering with occupiers’ rights or developments on the parcels in question. Until the next hearing, scheduled for March 10, 2026, the current occupation and structures remain intact under the court’s orders.

Emotions ran high outside the Milimani law courts after the ruling. Embakasi East Member of Parliament Babu Owino, whose office has been involved in supporting traders’ legal action, welcomed the decision. He urged authorities to comply with the court’s orders and stressed the livelihoods and dignity of residents must be respected while lawful process runs its course.

Market traders and settlement residents have repeatedly raised concerns about eviction efforts over the years, saying repeated threats have created economic instability and social stress. Gikomba Market remains one of Nairobi’s largest open-air trading hubs, known for secondhand clothing, household goods, hardware, and informal commerce that supports thousands of families both directly and indirectly.

The dispute reflects broader challenges in Nairobi’s urban management, especially where informal settlements and long-standing communities intersect with environmental regulations and riparian protection policies. Riparian buffer zones are intended to safeguard rivers from encroachment and mitigate flood risks, but critics of the enforcement actions say there must be clear survey demarcation, public participation and compensation frameworks when affecting established populations.

For now, the court’s interim orders mean traders will continue selling, and residents will remain in their homes as lawyers prepare arguments for the substantive hearing next week. The outcome of that hearing could influence how authorities balance statutory environmental mandates with recognised land rights and economic realities in densely populated urban corridors.