Why court has halted Sh17 billion Mombasa waste project
Coast
By
David Njaaga
| Dec 04, 2025
High Court in Mombasa has certified as urgent a petition challenging the county government's approval of a Sh17 billion waste management project without county assembly approval or public participation.
Justice Jairus Ngaah on Tuesday directed that the application be served immediately and gave respondents and interested parties seven days to file their responses.
The court will give directions on how the application will be disposed of on December 15.
The petition, filed on November 28 under a certificate of urgency, contests the legality of the waste management contract approved by the Mombasa County Government.
Petitioner Mohamed Ali, the current MP for Nyali Constituency, argues the county government bypassed mandatory legislative and public consultation processes in approving the multibillion-shilling contract.
READ MORE
Electric bike riders use Uber, Greenwheel in row over bonuses
Christmas fever: Five was to avoid borrowing without a realistic repayment plan
Stakeholders push for youth-led solutions to East Africa's agriculture challenges
Right direction for the country, Mbadi defends Safaricom stake sale
Who owns Kenya?: 2pc control over half of arable land
Treasury pockets Sh245b from Safaricom sale
Mbadi: Cash raised from Safaricom shares sale to fund infrastructure
CS Joho on spot over licencing of Devki's multi-billion iron ore deal
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EAC), the County Government of Mombasa, and eight others have been named as respondents and interested parties in the case.
The project, covering design, construction, financing, operation, and eventual transfer of a waste-to-energy plant in Mwakirunge, comes amid ongoing challenges in the county’s waste management.
Residents and watchdogs have raised concerns about illegal dumping sites, inefficient collection systems, and lack of transparency in procurement processes.
Under the County Governments Act, public participation is required in major infrastructure decisions, and the petitioner argues the approval of this project violated these legal obligations.
Oversight bodies and lawmakers have previously flagged concerns over the project’s tendering process, prompting calls for investigation and accountability.