The Environment and Land Court has blocked Nairobi City County Government from implementing a plan to lease designated spaces within Uhuru Park and Central Park without meaningful public participation.
Justice Oscar Angote issued a permanent injunction restraining the county government from implementing its December 3, 2024 resolution on leasing and renting spaces in the parks until the constitutional and statutory requirements are fulfilled.
The decision partially upheld a petition filed by the Green Belt Movement challenging the proposed commercial arrangements and the prolonged closure of Central Park. The court also ordered the immediate reopening of Central Park and directed the county to develop a legal framework for managing public parks and open green spaces within 12 months.
The ruling places renewed scrutiny on how county governments make decisions affecting public land, urban green spaces and recreational facilities, particularly where commercial interests intersect with the constitutional rights of residents.
Why the Uhuru Park and Central Park Leasing Plan Was Challenged
The dispute arose from Nairobi County’s decision to lease or rent designated spaces within Uhuru Park and Central Park to private operators. The county maintained that commercial activities could attract private investment, improve facilities, generate revenue and enhance the experience of visitors.
The proposed activities were intended to include recreational facilities, eateries and event spaces. In January 2025, a tender notice invited bids for the leasing of park spaces and the rental of various units, including containers, a pond and ablution blocks, for a three-year period.
However, the Green Belt Movement challenged the process, arguing that residents had not been adequately informed about which spaces would be leased, the proposed tenants or the basis on which the county reached its decision.
The organisation also questioned the absence of evidence demonstrating adequate public consultation and raised concerns about the lack of a feasibility study, an environmental impact assessment and County Assembly approval.
The Law Society of Kenya supported the petition, emphasising environmental rights and the importance of public oversight in decisions affecting shared public spaces.
Nairobi County, in its defence, argued that the case was premature because no lease or public-private partnership agreement had been signed and neither park had been transferred to a private entity. It also maintained that commercial services could improve amenities without depriving the public of ownership or access.
The court nevertheless held that the county could not proceed with the leasing resolution until meaningful public participation and the applicable constitutional and statutory requirements had been met. Where the proposed arrangements fall within the scope of the Public Private Partnerships Act, 2021, the relevant provisions must also be followed.
The decision does not amount to a blanket prohibition on all commercial activity in public parks. Rather, it establishes that the proposed leasing arrangements cannot be implemented without the required public consultation and legal compliance.
Public Participation and the Constitution of Kenya
At the heart of the dispute is the constitutional principle that public decisions should be made transparently and with meaningful opportunities for citizens to contribute.
Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya identifies public participation, transparency and accountability among the national values and principles of governance. These principles apply to public institutions when making decisions that affect communities and the use of public resources.
The Constitution also recognises environmental rights. Article 42 guarantees every person the right to a clean and healthy environment, while Article 69 sets out obligations relating to environmental protection and sustainable management.
In the context of Uhuru Park and Central Park, the court’s decision reinforces the connection between environmental rights and access to public green spaces. Public parks are not merely pieces of land under government administration; they also serve recreational, environmental and social purposes for the communities around them.
Meaningful public participation requires more than simply announcing a decision after it has been made. Residents need sufficient information to understand the proposal, assess its potential effects and communicate their views before the relevant decision is implemented.
For a leasing proposal involving public parks, this could include explaining the areas proposed for commercial use, the duration of the arrangements, the facilities to be introduced, the anticipated benefits and the safeguards intended to preserve public access.
The court’s intervention therefore raises an important question for county administrations across Kenya; how can governments attract private investment into public facilities while ensuring that residents retain a meaningful voice in decisions concerning assets held for their benefit?
Central Park Closure Raises Further Questions Over Public Access
Beyond the leasing dispute, the court addressed the prolonged closure of Central Park, which had remained inaccessible to the public since 2021.
Nairobi County attributed the delay in reopening the facility to incomplete rehabilitation works and the absence of a formal handover from the Ministry of Defence. In correspondence dated October 7, 2024, the county identified outstanding works involving water and sewer connections, irrigation, drainage, electrical installations, walkways and plumbing at the skating rink.
The court, however, found that the county had not adequately explained the delays, provided a clear timeline for completing the works or demonstrated why the entire park needed to remain closed.
Justice Angote ruled that the prolonged closure infringed constitutional protections under Articles 42 and 69. The court consequently ordered Central Park to be opened immediately, reinforcing the principle that access to public green spaces forms part of the broader right to a clean and healthy environment.
The decision does not mean that parks must remain open under every circumstance. Authorities may impose reasonable restrictions for legitimate purposes, including maintenance, rehabilitation, conservation and public safety. Such measures, however, must have a lawful basis and be implemented transparently.
The distinction is significant because rehabilitation projects can be necessary to restore ageing public infrastructure, but prolonged closures without adequate explanations can prevent residents from enjoying facilities intended for public use.
Why Uhuru Park and Central Park Matter to Nairobi Residents
Uhuru Park and Central Park occupy an important place in Nairobi’s urban and social history.
Uhuru Park was officially opened by Kenya’s first president, Jomo Kenyatta, on May 23, 1969. Located along Uhuru Highway near the central business district, the park has served as a recreational destination and a venue for political rallies, religious gatherings, cultural events and national celebrations.
Neighbouring Central Park contains the Kenyatta Monument and the Nyayo Monument. Together, the two spaces provide a relatively rare combination of open public land, recreation and historical significance within a rapidly developing city.
For families, workers, students and other city residents, public parks provide opportunities to relax, exercise, meet friends and escape the congestion of the central business district. They also contribute to the quality of the urban environment by preserving open space and supporting greenery within a densely developed city.
Decisions about the commercial use of these facilities therefore extend beyond questions of rent and revenue. They touch on how Nairobi balances the need to maintain public infrastructure with the responsibility to protect shared spaces for present and future generations.
The challenge for the county is to ensure that any commercial activities introduced into the parks complement their public purpose rather than undermine accessibility, affordability or their recreational and environmental value.
Private Investment Versus the Public Interest in Uhuru Park Leasing Plan
Nairobi County’s argument that private investment could improve facilities highlights a wider challenge facing urban authorities. Maintaining public parks requires funding for sanitation, landscaping, security, drainage, lighting and other infrastructure. Commercial partnerships, where legally and appropriately structured, may offer one way of mobilising resources for such improvements.
However, the prospect of generating revenue does not remove the obligation to comply with the Constitution and applicable laws.
Commercial arrangements can raise questions about the extent of space allocated to private operators, the prices charged for services, the management of public events and whether ordinary residents can continue using the parks without facing unreasonable barriers.
Transparent consultation can help identify these concerns before agreements are concluded. It can also give county officials an opportunity to explain the financial case for a proposal, the expected public benefits and the measures intended to protect access.
The court’s ruling makes clear that the leasing resolution cannot be implemented until the required process has been followed. It does not determine that private investment is inherently incompatible with public parks, nor does it automatically invalidate every possible future commercial arrangement.
Instead, any future proposal must be assessed against the applicable legal framework, with public participation and environmental obligations forming part of the process.
Nairobi County Given 12 Months to Develop Park Management Rules
In addition to blocking the leasing plan pending compliance with the law, the court directed Nairobi County to develop legislation, policies or guidelines governing the management and protection of public parks and open green spaces and submit the proposals to the County Assembly within 12 months.
Such a framework could provide greater clarity on how parks are managed, when access may be restricted, how commercial activities are authorised and what safeguards must be observed when public green spaces are rehabilitated or developed.
Clear rules would also help residents understand how decisions are made and how they can participate in matters affecting parks in their neighbourhoods.
The court declined to order the establishment of at least one extensive green space in each of Nairobi’s 17 sub-counties, finding that the petition had not identified a specific legal obligation requiring that particular measure. It also declined to impose a blanket requirement that parks remain open at all times or that court approval be obtained before every future closure.
These qualifications are important. The judgment recognises public access and environmental protection while leaving room for lawful administration, maintenance and reasonable management decisions.
The next stage will depend on how Nairobi County responds to the orders, conducts any required public participation and develops the proposed rules for public parks.
The decision is likely to remain relevant to wider debates about urban planning, environmental protection and public accountability in Kenya. As cities expand and pressure on public land increases, authorities face difficult choices about financing infrastructure, accommodating commercial activity and protecting open spaces.
ALSO READ: Earth Day: 6 Ways Kenyans Can Leverage Social Media To Drive Sustainability
