In a landmark ruling on the management of one of Nairobi’s most historic public spaces, the Environment and Land Court has barred the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) from managing City Park and directed the agency to provide a full account of all revenue collected from the park since 2019.
The court issued the orders following an urgent public interest petition filed by advocate Charles Mugane, who accuses KFS of illegally and forcefully taking over the management of City Park from the Nairobi City County Government.
The matter will be mentioned on October 22, 2025, for directions on the hearing of the main petition.
Alleged Illegal Takeover by KFS
According to court documents, the dispute stems from a clandestine transfer of control of City Park from the county government to KFS around 2019, during the period when the Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS) temporarily oversaw county functions.
In his affidavit, Mugane alleges that KFS “deployed forest rangers who not only occupy but also run and collect revenue from City Park,” effectively sidelining county authorities.
He accuses KFS staff of harassing visitors, claiming that rangers have resorted to intimidation, force, and violence, with reports of people being beaten without just cause.
The petition further alleges financial mismanagement, stating that KFS officers collect money from park restaurants, traders, and visitors without accountability, in breach of the Public Finance Management Act.
Dispute Over Fencing and Public Participation
A key issue in the case is KFS’s plan to fence City Park, which the petitioner argues would restrict public access to a vital urban green space.
Mugane attached a letter from the State Department for Forestry inviting select organizations to a public participation forum held on September 9, 2025.
He termed the process a “sham exercise,” claiming KFS only invited friendly entities “to mock compliance with public participation requirements.”
“The move to fence the park is both unconstitutional and socially unjust—it would convert a public park into a restricted zone,” reads part of the petition.
Violation of Devolution and Environmental Laws
The petitioner argues that KFS’s actions violate the Constitution and the Forest Conservation and Management Act, particularly Section 37, which vests the management of urban parks and arboreta in county governments, not the national forestry agency.
He adds that the takeover undermines devolution, transparency, and public participation, which are key constitutional principles in managing public resources.
In support of his case, Mugane presented a gazette notice published on August 11, 2025, by the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee, officially listing City Park as a “Recreational Park” under the jurisdiction of the Nairobi City County Government.
This gazette notice directly contradicts KFS’s control of the park, strengthening claims that the agency’s occupation is unlawful.
Court Issues Injunction and Audit Orders
In response, the Environment and Land Court issued interim injunctions restraining KFS from:
-
Managing or occupying City Park;
-
Charging entry or usage fees;
-
Collecting or remitting revenue from the park;
-
Undertaking any development or fencing project pending determination of the case.
The court also ordered KFS to disclose any agreements it may have signed with the Nairobi County Government and to render a full account of all funds collected from City Park since 2019.
The directive is seen as a victory for environmental groups such as Green Belt Movement and Nature Kenya, who are listed as interested parties in the case.
Implications for Urban Green Space Governance
The outcome of the case could set a precedent for the management of public parks and natural spaces within Kenya’s urban areas.
Environmentalists argue that the ruling reaffirms the principles of devolution and environmental stewardship, ensuring that county governments, not national agencies, manage local recreational assets.
City Park—established over a century ago—is Nairobi’s oldest public green space, cherished for its biodiversity, heritage trees, and role as a community recreation area.
As the case proceeds to full hearing, questions remain about transparency, accountability, and the protection of public lands from institutional overreach.