The legal fallout following the tragic collapse of Manzil Towers C in Nairobi’s South C estate took a dramatic turn. In a ruling issued by High Court Judge Justice Dr. Nabil Mokaya Orina, the court temporarily halted the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) from arresting, charging, or prosecuting senior Nairobi City County Government (City Hall) officials linked to the disaster.
The order directly impacts high-ranking county officers—including Patrick Analo Akivaga and David Kibui Kigathi—who were facing impending criminal charges over alleged regulatory oversight failures and statutory negligence surrounding the building’s construction.
This judicial intervention temporarily freezes a charge sheet dated July 14, 2026, re-igniting intense national debate regarding administrative responsibility, building approvals, and criminal liability within Nairobi’s urban planning ecosystem.
1. What The Court Ruled: Orders Issued by Justice Dr. Nabil Mokaya Orina
The High Court’s directive stems from an urgent application for Judicial Review filed by the City Hall officers seeking to quash the DCI’s decision to institute criminal proceedings.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Presiding Judge Justice Dr. Nabil Mokaya Orina │
│ Applicants Patrick Analo Akivaga, David Kibui │
│ Kigathi & 3rd City Hall Official │
│ Key Respondent Directorate of Criminal Investigations │
│ Primary Relief Stay of Charge Sheet dated July 14, 2026 │
│ Effect Stops arrest, arraignment & prosecution │
│ Next Mention Date September 16, 2026 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Key Decisions in the Order:
Leave to File Judicial Review: The applicants were granted permission to formally challenge the legal basis of the criminal charges brought by the DCI.
Order of Stay: Pending the hearing and determination of the main petition, the court ordered that the leave granted operates as a stay of execution regarding the July 14, 2026 charge sheet.
Prohibition Directives: The DCI, its agents, and any associated law enforcement bodies are explicitly barred from arresting or prosecuting the named applicants in relation to the South C building collapse.
Court Timelines: The applicants were instructed to serve their substantive application within seven days. The respondents have 21 days to submit their counter-affidavits before a compliance mention scheduled for September 16, 2026.
2. The Charges: What Were the City Hall Officials Accused Of?
Prior to the court’s intervention, state prosecutors and the DCI had prepared charges centered on official misconduct and regulatory omissions.
Accused Category Statutory Offense Legal Framework Prosecution Allegation
County Executives / Senior Planners Abuse of Office Sections 101(1) & 102A, Penal Code Allegedly approving or allowing unauthorized structural alterations or bypassing enforcement orders.
Field Inspectors & Enforcement Officers Neglect of Official Duty Section 128 r/w Section 36, Penal Code Failing to enforce stop-work orders on non-compliant sites despite known safety defects.
The core of the prosecution’s case rests on the argument that public servants tasked with urban planning, structural compliance, and physical safety willfully overlooked major red flags during the construction of Manzil Towers C.
3. Inside the Judicial Review Argument: Why City Hall Officials Went to Court
In seeking Judicial Review, the applicants argue that the DCI’s move to prosecute them represents an arbitrary and illegal use of police powers.
The Legal Battleground: Criminal Trial vs. Judicial Review
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ DCI Position: │
│ Officials failed in statutory duties, leading to structural │
│ failure; therefore, criminal prosecution is justified. │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
vs
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Applicants Position: │
│ Individual officers are being scapegoated for institutional │
│ failures without personal criminal culpability or due process.│
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
The officers contend that:
Lack of Personal Culpability: Administrative oversight and technical plan approvals carried out in good faith under county statutes should not automatically expose public officers to personal criminal liability unless direct criminal intent (mens rea) is proven.
Procedural Flaws: The process leading up to the drafting of the charge sheet bypassed statutory dispute resolution mechanisms provided under physical planning legislation.
Institutional Delegation: Responsibility for structural integrity lies primarily with registered private professionals—including developers, structural engineers, and architects—rather than municipal administrative staff.
4. The Broader Crisis: Nairobi’s Building Collapse Pandemic
The legal tussle over Manzil Towers C takes place against the backdrop of an ongoing structural safety crisis across the Nairobi Metropolitan Area. High-density neighborhoods such as South C, South B, Kasarani, and Pipeline have experienced recurring structural failures, frequently linked to:
Unregulated Floor Additions: Developers exceeding approved story limits without structural retrofitting.
Substandard Construction Materials: Use of under-strength concrete mixes and non-compliant steel rebar.
Counterfeit Compliance Documentation: Fake safety certificates bypassing official National Construction Authority (NCA) checks.
Inspector Shortages: Inadequate staffing ratios at City Hall to physically monitor thousands of active construction sites daily.
5. What Happens Next?
The High Court’s stay order provides temporary relief for the accused officials, but the broader legal battle is far from over.
When the case comes up for mention on September 16, 2026, the High Court will evaluate whether the DCI acted within constitutional bounds or overstepped its mandate by pursuing criminal charges against municipal planning officers.
If the court ultimately quashes the charge sheet, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) may be forced to re-evaluate how it frames cases against public officials involved in urban planning. Conversely, if the judicial review application is dismissed, the stay order will be lifted, clearing the path for the immediate arrest and arraignment of the officers.
