Woodley residents challenge Sakaja over evictions, court orders

Woodley Development Initiative Chairperson Samson Gachango addresses a media briefing in Nairobi on September 6, 2026. [Kanyiri Wahito, Standard]

Woodley residents have challenged Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja’s controversial evictions in the estate, accusing the county government of reducing a long-running legal dispute to a question of rent arrears while failing to address court orders issued over the matter.

The Woodley Development Initiative (WDI), through its chairman Sam Gachago, said the dispute was not simply about tenants failing to pay rent but concerned due process, disputed rent accounts, property rights and alleged non-compliance with court orders.

“Woodley is not a story about entitled tenants. It is a test of the rule of law,” Gachago said in response to remarks attributed to Sakaja and published in the local dailies on September 3, 2026.

He argued that residents who went to court were exercising their constitutional right to seek legal redress after their rights were allegedly threatened during the evictions.

WDI said the High Court had issued orders concerning affected tenants and their property, including directions for the county government to resettle some residents and return household goods removed during the evictions.

Gachago cited concerns previously recorded by the Nairobi City County Assembly that evictions had allegedly been carried out despite an injunctive order issued on June 4, 2025, restraining further evictions.

The residents are now demanding that the county account for what happened to the affected tenants, their household property and the houses after the evictions.

They have particularly questioned reports that some houses may subsequently have been allocated to other people despite court directions concerning restoration of displaced residents.

WDI wants the county to publish tenancy records for affected houses, individual rent statements, the methodology used to calculate alleged arrears, eviction notices and proof of service.

It also wants records showing compliance with court orders, an inventory of household goods removed from homes and their current status, as well as records of repairs, destruction or alterations to the affected houses.

The group is further calling for details of subsequent allocations, including the beneficiaries and the legal authority under which the houses were allocated.

Gachago said many Woodley residents had lived in the county houses for decades and had sought legal clarification of their tenancy status.

He said previous assurances by the county concerning the resettlement of tenants displaced by redevelopment should also be considered when assessing the dispute.

WDI clarified that it did not oppose payment of legitimate rent but objected to disputed accounts, arbitrary treatment, unlawful eviction and disregard of court orders.

“If the county believes the court orders are wrong, the lawful remedy is to appeal or seek appropriate orders from court, not to disregard them,” Gachago said.

The residents urged Sakaja to address the outstanding legal questions through official records, saying Woodley was not seeking special treatment but compliance with the law.