Anger and despair gripped traders at Nairobi’s Gikomba market after county authorities demolished a section of the popular shoe market overnight, leaving vendors to wake up to flattened stalls and scattered merchandise.
The operation, carried out under tight security, targeted structures identified as encroaching on designated river reserve land. County officials maintained that due process was followed, noting that traders had been issued with prior eviction notices before the crackdown was executed.
The demolition forms part of a broader government directive issued in May 2024 by the Interior Ministry, ordering the removal of buildings constructed on riparian lands across Nairobi and other urban areas. The directive was triggered by devastating floods that swept across the country, claiming the lives of more than 100 people nationwide, with Nairobi recording the highest toll at 37 fatalities.
Many traders expressed frustration, saying the eviction had dealt a heavy economic blow. Some claimed they had invested heavily in their businesses and were caught off guard by the timing, while others acknowledged awareness of the notice but had hoped for more time or alternative arrangements.
The crackdown, however, is unfolding against a contested legal backdrop. The Environment and Land Court had earlier issued a temporary order halting planned demolitions of thousands of homes and businesses along the Nairobi River, granting a reprieve to residents of Blue Estate, Kamukunji, Gikomba and surrounding areas. Lady Justice Lilian Kimani certified as urgent a petition filed by the River Bank Settlement Scheme and four individual petitioners, directing that the status quo be maintained pending a hearing.
The petitioners, who moved to court after the Water Resources Authority issued a 14-day demolition notice in February 2026, argue they are lawful allottees of the land, having been allocated their parcels by the defunct Nairobi City Council in 2002. They contend that they have occupied and developed the area for over 25 years, paying all required rents and rates.
At the heart of the legal dispute is the application of a blanket 30-metre riparian reserve rule, which the petitioners describe as arbitrary and unsupported by site-specific scientific data. They further allege selective enforcement, claiming that developments on the opposite bank of the river have been spared while low-income settlements on their side bear the brunt of the crackdown.
The affected area, according to court documents, hosts thousands of residents including school-going children, expectant women, the elderly, and persons with disabilities, alongside residential flats, commercial premises, schools, and health facilities.
Government agencies have maintained that enforcing riparian regulations is critical to preventing future flooding disasters, with urban planners and environmental experts long warning that encroachment on river reserves disrupts natural drainage and heightens vulnerability to extreme weather.
The tension between enforcement and the rights of long-established communities looks set to play out in court, with an inter partes hearing scheduled to determine the fate of thousands who call the riverbank their home and livelihood.
