The government has told the court that a petition seeking to stop the Sh375 billion upgrade of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport should not be entertained at this stage, arguing that the matter was rushed to court and does not meet the threshold for urgent intervention.
State lawyers on Tuesday argued that the Consumer Federation of Kenya (Cofek) bypassed proper legal procedures and brought the dispute before the High Court before exhausting available complaint channels under procurement and information laws.
They maintained that the case is speculative and based on unverified claims, and therefore not fit for conservatory orders.
The petition seeks to block the planned redevelopment of JKIA, which includes expansion works, airport-city development plans and long-term financing structures tied to the airport. Cofek has raised concerns over transparency, saying key details on ownership, funding and procurement of one of the country’s largest infrastructure projects have not been fully disclosed.
The case names the Cabinet Secretary for Roads and Transport, the Kenya Airports Authority (Kenya Airports Authority), the National Treasury Cabinet Secretary and the Attorney-General as respondents.
Chinese firms China Communications Construction Company and China Road and Bridge Corporation, alongside IMC Construction Kenya Ltd, are listed as interested parties.
Attention around the matter has grown after Cofek cited reports linking IMC Construction Kenya Ltd to Zimbabwean businessman Wicknell Chivayo, who has been seen in publicized interactions and shared images of meetings with President William Ruto during visits to Kenya.
In court, Cofek lawyer Tali Israel Tali acknowledged that several respondents and interested parties were not served within the required timelines after the matter was certified urgent. “We did not end up serving this matter to some parties, including interested parties. I apologise to the court,” he said.
Senior Deputy Chief State Counsel Samuel Kaumba opposed the application, arguing that the failure to serve all parties as directed removed the urgency that justified the case being heard on an urgent basis.
“The first implication is that, by the conduct of the counsel, this matter has since lost urgency,” he told the court.
He further argued that proceeding without proper service would disadvantage the respondents and undermine fair hearing principles, insisting that court orders must be obeyed before any relief is granted.
The Attorney-General Dorcas Oduor also filed a preliminary objection and submissions seeking to have both the petition and the application dismissed. The State argued that Cofek acted too quickly based on newspaper reports without first verifying the claims through legal and regulatory institutions.
“It is inconceivable that a litigant on the basis of a single article in a newspaper, without due care and skill to verify the veracity of the allegations, would readily approach court,” the Attorney-General said.
The government maintained that procurement complaints must first go through the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act mechanisms, including the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority and the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board. Issues touching on access to information, it added, should be pursued under the Access to Information Act before invoking constitutional litigation.
“The complaint can easily be addressed under the statutory framework of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, and the Access to Information Act,” the submissions state.
State lawyers further told the court that the redevelopment process is still in progress, noting that Tender No. SDAAD/OT/001/2025-2026 has not been concluded and no final procurement decision has been made that would justify court intervention.
On that basis, the government insists the case is premature and should be dismissed to allow the airport upgrade process to proceed without disruption.