REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E260 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3 (1), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27,174, 209 AND 210 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE FOURTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONTRAVENTION OR BREACH OF ARTICLES 174, 209, 210 AND THE FOURTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE INTERPRETATION, IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT AND CONTRAVENTION/BREACH OF ARTICLES 209, 210 AND THE FOURTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 93, 94 AND 185 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE COUNTY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CONTROL ACT, CAP. 276 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE NAIROBI CITY COUNTY, KAJIADO COUNTY, MACHAKOS COUNTY, NAROK COUNTY, KITUI COUNTY, MAKUENI COUNTY, THARAKA NITHI COUNTY, GARISSA COUNTY, ISIOLO COUNTY, EMBU COUNTY, MURANGA COUNTY, NYERI COUNTY AND KIAMBU COUNTY FINANCE ACTS
-BETWEEN-
CLIFFORD ONYANGO ODHIAMBO ............................................... PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAIROBI ....................... 1 ST RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KAJIADO ...................... 2 ND RESPONDENT THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MACHAKOS ................ 3 RD RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAROK ......................... 4 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KITUI ....……………… 5 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MAKUENI ………........ 6 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF THARAKA NITHI …... 7 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF GARISSA …………….. 8 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF ISIOLO ………….……. 9 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF EMBU …………….… .10 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MURANGA …………. 11 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NYERI ……………..... 12 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KIAMBU ………...….. 13 TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Background
1. The Petitioner Clifford Onyango Odhiambo is an adult Kenyan male of National Identification Card number 27****76 and a practicing Advocate of the High Court of Kenya. All the thirteen Respondents are County Governments and of the 47 devolved governments established under Article 176 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
2. Vide the Petition dated 5 th May 2025, the Petitioner, Clifford Onyango Odhiambo, seeks various constitutional declarations and injunctive orders against the 13 County Governments. The Petitioner challenges the decisions allegedly made by the 13 County Governments imposing advertising taxes, levies or fees on branded motor vehicles operating as moving vehicles passing through or operating in their jurisdictions under their respective County Finance Acts. It is alleged that to compel payment, county officials have been detaining, clamping or denying entry/transit to these moving vehicles.
3. The Petition was initially filed alongside an interlocutory Application dated 5 th May 2025 and the Petitioner’s Supporting Affidavit of even date. However, on 25 th July 2025, the Petitioner formally withdrew his interlocutory Application, effectively withdrawing the supporting affidavit and its annexed exhibits from the record.
4. The Petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:
(a) A declaration that the cess/charge/levy/tax imposed by the Respondent County Governments for advertisements displayed on or in any moving motor vehicles employed as moving vehicles are cess/charge/levy/tax are without justification and not in exchange of a public need, services or amenities contrary to Article 209(4) and (5) of the Constitution of Kenya.
(b) A declaration that the cess/charge/levy/tax imposed by the Respondents County Governments for advertisements displayed on or in any moving motor vehicle employed as a moving vehicle, are in violation of Article 210 (1) of the Constitution as they are taxes without any legislative approval.
(c) A declaration that the detention or denial of transit of motor vehicles with advertisements displayed on or in them whereas they are employed as a moving vehicle through the Respondents’ jurisdictions is in violation of persons fundamental rights under Article 40 (1) to property, fair administrative action under Article 47 and freedom of movement of persons/labour contrary to Article 39 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya.
(d) The imposing of the cess/charges/levies/taxes on motor vehicles employed as moving vehicles with advertisements displayed on or in them by the Respondents prejudices national economic interests, policies and activities and the mobility of goods, services, capital and labour in violation of Article 209 (5) of the Constitution of Kenya.
(e) A permanent injunction be issued barring the 1 st – 13 th Respondents from imposing cess/charge/levy/tax on motor vehicles with advertisements displayed on or in them whereas they are employed as a moving vehicle.
5. The Petitioner asserts that the Respondents are levying taxes on advertisements on moving vehicles without providing any public need or amenity in return and without the required Parliamentary approval, thereby violating Constitutional protections under Articles 209, 210, 39, and 47 of the Constitution . It is averred that county governments cannot impose taxes without Parliamentary authorization and that neither can they do so outside statutory provisions. The Petitioner pleads that the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (Cap 276) explicitly exempts advertisements on vehicles normally employed as moving vehicles licensed in another county.
6. According to the Petitioner, county governments are empowered under Article 209 of the Constitution to raise revenue and levy taxes or charges, but that under Article 209(4), they are only authorized to charge for services they actually provide. He relies on the definition of "Services" as stated by the Supreme Court in Base Titanium Limited v County Government of Mombasa & another (2021), eKLR where "services" is defined as a system providing for a public need or amenity such as county roads, street lighting or traffic control . The Petitioner argues that counties can only impose charges in direct exchange for specific services, a public need or amenity. That in this case, counties offer no service to moving, branded vehicles in return for these taxes.
7. It is the Petitioner’s further case that while county legislative assemblies hold delegated power under Article 1, their authority must comply with the Constitution. He asserts that the presumption that County Finance Acts are constitutional is rebuttable and that under Article 2 of the Constitution, the High Court has the power to declare the Respondents’ Finance Acts null and void for violating Articles 209 and 210 .
8. It is argued that because of this practise by county governments, charging moving vehicles in every county they pass through, amounts to multiple taxation, increases transport costs, inflates prices for goods and services and hinders the mobility of goods, labour and capital across county borders, in violation of Article 209(5) of the Constitution .
9. It is also asserted that detaining or restricting the movement of these vehicles infringes on vehicle owners’ constitutional rights to property under Article 40 , freedom of movement under Article 39 and fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution.
Responses to the Petition
10. In response to the Petition, the 1 st , 6 th , 9 th , 12 th and 13 th Respondents filed their respective responses by way of Replying Affidavits. The 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th 7 th , 8 th , 10 th and 11 th Respondents did not file any responses to the Petition.
11. The 1 st Respondent, which is the City County Government of Nairobi filed its Replying Affidavit dated 4 th December 2025 sworn by Dr. Machel Waikenda, the County Chief Officer in charge of the Mobility Sub-Sector in which it is deposed that the Petition lacks merit, is an abuse of the court process and should be dismissed.
12. The 1 st Respondent contends that Nairobi City County Government operates strictly within its constitutional and legal mandate under Article 209 (3) & (4), Part 2 Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution , the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (Cap 276), the Nairobi City County Finance Act, 2023 and the Nairobi City County Transport Act, 2020.
13. It is deposed that the County Government provides regulatory services in return for outdoor advertising fees, including monitoring compliance with advertising standards, maintaining public amenities and infrastructure impacted by advertising and ensuring road safety, environmental orderliness and aesthetic control.
14. According to the 1 st Respondent, its laws apply strictly to local commercial advertising vehicles operating within Nairobi City County, not to intercounty/transit vehicles merely passing through the City County and that the Petitioner failed to provide any evidence such as invoices, fines, enforcement entries or detention records showing that Nairobi City County has ever charged or detained a transit vehicle licensed in another county.
15. It therefore characterizes the allegations made by the Petitioner as being speculative, unsubstantiated and based on misinterpretation of the law and hypothetical fears rather than proven violations. Additionally, the 1 st Respondent denies infringing on property rights under Article 40, freedom of movement under Article 39 (1) or fair administrative action under Article 47 .
16. It is deposed further that enforcement by the City County Government of Nairobi targets non-compliant local advertisers and strictly follows fair administrative action processes, including notices and internal review/appeal options and that the Petitioner has adduced no evidence showing that the 1 st Respondent’s advertising fees caused price increases for goods/services or restricted cross-county commerce. That accordingly, and in the absence of credible evidence of wrongdoing, the Petition fails the threshold for enforcement of constitutional rights and ought to be dismissed.
17. The 6 th Respondent , the County Government of Makueni filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Boniface Mutua on 28 th November 2025 opposing the Petition and arguing that its outdoor advertising fees are lawful, constitutional and properly enacted under the county legislative authority.
18. The 6 th Respondent asserts that after withdrawing his interlocutory Application, the Petitioner left the main Petition as a "skeleton" devoid of supporting evidence or specific proof of rights violations. It is deposed that under Part 2, Paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution , controlling outdoor advertising is a fully devolved function assigned to county governments. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Base Titanium Ltd v. County Government of Mombasa , the 6 th Respondent through the contends in deposition that under Article 209(4) of the Constitution, it can levy charges in exchange for regulatory services, infrastructure and access to the local audience or market provided to mobile advertisers operating in its area.
19. It is further deposed that the advertising charges are enacted under the Makueni County Finance Act, 2023 pursuant to legislative powers granted by Article 185(2) of the Constitution and that therefore, declaring these fees unconstitutional would cripple county revenue and devolution.
20. The deponent for the 6 th Respondent deposes that the Petitioner failed to show with precision how Makueni County Government specifically violated Articles 10, 40, 47, 176, 209, or 210 of the Constitution and that the Petitioner provided no proof that the 6 th Respondent confiscated property, interfered with vehicle movement or harmed national economic interests. It characterizes the Petitioner’s claims as broad, speculative and failing the pleading threshold established in the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v. Republic (1976) eKLR .
21. The 6 th Respondent County Government avers that Section 3(c)(vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (Cap 276) does not prohibit counties from levying charges on moving vehicles, but rather, that the framework regulates and empowers county governments to do so within constitutional bounds.
22. Citing Section 19 of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act , the deponent asserts that statutory dispute resolution mechanisms must be exhausted before invoking the High Court jurisdiction. It is urges that the petition should be dismissed because the Petitioner jumped directly to litigation without following the prescribed statutory redress mechanisms as set out in Speaker of the National Assembly v. Karume . The 6 th Respondent prays for costs as well.
23. The 9 th Respondent , the County Government of Isiolo filed a Replying Affidavit dated 9 th December 2025 and sworn by Luqman Ahmed, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, Economic Planning & ICT in which it is deposed that under Article 209(2), (3), and (4) and the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 , County Governments are empowered to levy taxes and service fees within their assigned functions, which includes outdoor advertising management.
24. The deponent asserts that the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act vests outdoor advertising management in the County Governments and allows County Assemblies to pass county-specific legislation. Therefore, that there is no conflict between the relevant laws and the Isiolo County Finance Act, 2023 , which is constitutional and lawful.
25. It is deposed that the fees collected from outdoor advertising are lawfully charged and applied toward service delivery for the residents of Isiolo County and that under Section 3(c)(vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act, vehicles operating in transit are exempt from applying for an outdoor advertising licence only if they hold a valid licence from another county.
26. The deponent swears that the Petitioner withdrew their interlocutory Application dated 5 th May 2025, thereby failing to tender evidence in support of their key assertions and that even if the Court analysed the Petitioner’s Exhibit (CO-41), there is no proof that specific motor vehicles being KBP 432B, KDG 221P, KDD 051P and KDM 153C possessed a valid advertising licence from another county before applying for branding in Isiolo County. That in the absence of proof of licensing from another county, the 9 th Respondent was legally justified in levying the vehicle branding fee of Kshs. 20,000/= per vehicle.
27. Citing the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (No. 1) [1979] KLR 154 , the 9 th Respondent contends that the Petition lacks reasonable precision regarding what specific constitutional provisions or rights were violated by Isiolo County Government and further contends that the Petition is an abuse of court process. The 9 th Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs.
28. The 12 th Respondent, the County Government of Nyeri opposes the Petition through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Edward Irungu Mwangi the County Secretary, on 5 th November 2025 . He deposes that its advertising fees are constitutional, statutory and reasonable and that the Petition is incompetent, devoid of merit and should be dismissed with costs.
29. The deponent states that under Part 2, Paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, controlling outdoor advertising is a devolved function assigned to County Governments. Further, that pursuant to Article 209(4) of the Constitution , the fees levied on outdoor advertising including moving vehicles are regulatory service charges, not taxes requiring Parliamentary approval. That these fees fund active regulatory activities such as preventing visual clutter, conducting road-safety inspections and preserving environmental aesthetics.
30. It is deposed that the fee structure is established under Section 21 of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (COACA) and operationalized via the Nyeri County Finance Act, 2023 . That Section 3(c)(vi) COACA provides that an exemption from outdoor advertising fees applies conditionally only to transit vehicles holding a valid outdoor advertising licence from another county.
31. It is their deposition that the Petitioner failed to provide proof that any affected vehicles held a licence from another county, making the claim for exemption legally unsustainable. Further, that vehicles primarily used for transport and logistics that carry corporate branding do not fall under the statutory exclusions and remain subject to county regulatory oversight.
32. They assert that the Petitioner withdrew his interlocutory Application dated 5 th May 2025 pursuant to a Court Order dated 25 th July 2025 and that this withdrawal effectively removed the supporting evidence and annexures such as payment receipts from the court record, leaving the Petition unsupported.
33. The deponent avers that the Petitioner provided no admissible evidence demonstrating unlawful detention, denial of transit or breach of rights under Articles 39 on freedom of movement, Article 40 on property rights or Article 47 on fair administrative action.
34. The 13 th Respondent, the County Government of Kiambu filed a Replying Affidavit filed in opposition to the Petition dated 16 th October 2025. The Replying Affidavit is sworn by Waithira Waiyaki, the County Attorney. She deposes that the County Government’s regulation and fee levies on outdoor advertising including moving branded vehicles are constitutional, statutory, reasonable and necessary.
35. That under Part 2, Paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution , the control and regulation of outdoor advertising is exclusively assigned to county governments and that pursuant to Article 209(4) of the Constitution , counties are authorized to impose service charges for regulating outdoor advertising.
36. It is deposed that moving branded vehicles utilize county roads and public amenities, exposing local residents to commercial advertising for the benefit of the advertiser, which justifies regulatory charges. The deponent also states that charges are passed via County Finance Acts and the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, following required public participation and approval by County Assemblies as required under the constitution.
37. It is contended that the Petitioner’s reliance on the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act, Cap 276 is misplaced and untenable. The 13 th Respondent argues that Parliament acted ultra vires in enacting legislation on a devolved county function. That even under Section 2 of Cap 276, the definition of a "vehicle" excludes those used primarily for displaying advertisements. Thus, that the Act does not bar county regulation of mobile billboard vehicles.
38. The deponent asserts that under Regulation 6 of the Physical and Land Use Planning (Advertisement) Regulations (Legal Notice 242 of 2021), vehicles primarily used as mobile billboards or advertising displays are not exempt from approval fees.
39. The 13 th Respondent avers that regulating mobile advertisements ensures equitable revenue sharing among counties where vehicles circulate, preventing unjust enrichment of a single licensing county at the expense of other counties whose residents view the advertisements.
40. The 13 th Respondent through its deponent denies any violation of Articles 39 on freedom of movement, Article 40 on property rights, Article 47 on fair administrative action, or Article 210 on taxation principles. Further, that the regulation does not hinder the transit of goods or national economic interests; rather, it maintains orderly outdoor advertising and transparent revenue collection.
41. The 13 th Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs, citing it as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
42. The parties took directions to canvass the Petition by way of written submissions which are now on record and are summarized as hereunder.
Submissions
43. The Petitioner’s Submissions are dated 10 th November 2025. He submits on four issues namely:
i. whether by failing to approve Finance Bills each year, the Respondents have violated Articles 196 (b) and 209 (3) of the Constitution of Kenya;
ii. Whether the Respondents are imposing cess on branded moving motor vehicles without providing any service in return contrary to Article 209 (4) of the Constitution of Kenya;
iii. Whether the enactment of the Nairobi City County Finance Act, 2023 by the 1 st Respondent or by the other Respondents violated the constitutional principles of public participation under Articles 10, 174, 196, and 201 of the Constitution due to the absence of a Tariffs and Pricing Policy and
iv. whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.
44. On the first issue of failure to enact annual Finance Bills being in violation of Articles 196(b) & 209(3) of the Constitution , the Petitioner submits that under Sections 131 and 133 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA ), county governments are required to pass Appropriation and Finance Bills annually by 30 th June and approve Finance Bills within 90 days of passing the Appropriation Bill. The Petitioner produced exhibits CO-3 to CO-15 to demonstrate that the Respondent County Governments are relying on outdated Finance Acts.
45. The Petitioner submits that continuing to levy fees/cess using outdated Finance Acts bypasses annual public participation required under Article 196(b) of the Constitution . Citing Nyabuto v County Assembly of Nairobi City County & 2 others; Commission on Revenue Allocation (Interested Party) (Petition E040 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 8865 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights), the Petitioner highlights that County Assemblies abdicate oversight and breach Article 47 on Fair Administrative Action and PFMA duties when they pass fiscal measures without proper policy frameworks like a Tariffs and Pricing Policy.
46. On the second issue of imposition of charges without providing services being in violation of Article 209(4), the Petitioner submits that he submitted invoices and receipts CO-16 to CO-76 showing fees levied on owners of moving branded vehicles. He further relies on the definition of "Service" by the Supreme Court in Base Titanium Limited v County Government of Mombasa [2021] KESC 33 (KLR ), and submits that "charges" under Article 209(4) can only be levied in exchange for a public service, need or amenity.
47. He further submits that those counties provide no service to moving branded vehicles carrying goods or people across county lines and therefore, charging solely for being branded inflates consumer prices. He further submits that the county charges on inter-county transit run counter to national economic policies, disrupting the movement of goods, capital, and labour impeding economic mobility under Article 209(5) of the Constitution .
48. The Petitioner in his submissions also refutes Kiambu County Government’s claim that fees are justified because vehicles use county roads. He argues that the Fourth Schedule limits road-user fees to toll charges in approved Finance Bills. Furthermore, that Section 3(c)(vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act explicitly exempts moving vehicles licensed in another county.
49. On the third issue of unconstitutionality of County Finance Acts due to lack of Tariffs & Pricing Policy, the Petitioner cites Nyabuto v County Assembly of Nairobi City County & 2 others; Commission on Revenue Allocation (Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 8865 (KLR) where the High Court held that the Nairobi’s Finance Act 2023 was unconstitutional for lacking a Tariffs and Pricing Policy, rendering its public participation flawed. That, consequently, Section 3 of the Nairobi Finance Act, 2023 imposing Kshs. 13,650–15,000 per fortnight on branded moving vehicles, along with similar provisions in other Respondents’ Finance Acts are null and void.
50. The Petitioner invokes the Court’s Remedial Powers under Articles 23(3), 165, and 259, of the Constitution to declare unconstitutional statutes invalid and grant remedies such as injunctions or declarations. He urges the Court to declare the county charges inconsistent with Articles 47, 196(b), 209 and 210 of the Constitution, following the precedents set in the Base Titanium and Nyabuto cases (supra).
The Respondents’ Submissions
51. The County Government of Makueni the 6 th Respondent’s submissions are dated 15 th December 2025 in which Counsel isolates five issues for determination being:
i. Whether the 6 th Respondent has the Constitutional and the statutory mandate under the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act Cap 76 Laws of Kenya to impose charges and levies for outdoor advertising including advertisements displayed in any moving vehicles;
ii. Whether the Petitioner has demonstrated any violation of fundamental rights under Articles 10, 47, 176, 209 and 210 of the Constitution; Whether Section 3 (c) (vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act, Cap 76 Laws of Kenya bars the Respondents from imposing levies and charges on moving vehicles;
iii. Whether the Petitioner has exhausted all the available mechanisms before filing the Petition; and
iv. Whether the Petition discloses a justiciable cause of action against the 6 th Respondent.
52. As a preliminary issue, Counsel notes that while the Petitioner filed an application on 5 th May 2025 alongside the Petition, he subsequently withdrew it on 27 th July 2025, leaving the Petition without supporting evidence. On the first issue, it is submitted that under Part 2, Paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule as well as Article 176 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya , 2010, controlling outdoor advertising is a fully devolved function assigned to County Governments. Citing Article 209 (4) of the Constitution , Counsel contends that charges levied for outdoor advertising are service fees for monitoring and regulating advertising space rather than taxes requiring Parliamentary approval under Article 209 (3) (c) .
53. On the second issue, it is submitted that moving branded vehicles utilize county infrastructure such as roads, public amenities and local visibility to gain a commercial advantage, which justifies regulatory charges imposed via the Makueni County Finance Act, 2023. Counsel cites the case of Base Titanium Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [2021] KESC 33 (KLR) to affirm that county governments have the constitutional discretion to impose charges in exchange for public amenities and services.
54. On the third issue of statutory interpretation of Section 3(c)(vi), Counsel for the 6 th Respondent argues that Section 3(c)(vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (Cap. 276) does not prohibit counties from charging fees on moving vehicles. Instead, that it empowers county governments to lawfully regulate and levy charges on such outdoor advertisements within their jurisdiction.
55. On the fourth issue, it is submitted that Section 19 of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act requires parties to a dispute to exhaust statutory or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms prior to approaching the High Court. Citing the case of Geoffrey Muthinja v Samuel Mugura Henry [2015] KECA 304 and Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume [1992] eKLR , Counsel argues that the Court should decline jurisdiction because the Petitioner prematurely filed the Petition without utilizing the mandatory statutory dispute resolution channels.
56. Counsel argues that the Petition is in breach of pleadings rule. Citing the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KLR 154 , Counsel contends that constitutional claims must be pleaded with a high degree of precision. That in this case, the Petitioner failed to provide concrete evidence showing how Makueni County specifically violated Articles 10, 40, 47, 176, 209, or 210 or how his private property was seized or damaged.
57. Counsel for the 6 th Respondent submits that it acted entirely within its constitutional and statutory mandate and prays that the High Court dismisses the Petition with costs awarded to the County Government of Makueni.
58. T he 9 th Respondent, the County Government of Isiolo, filed submissions which are dated 15 th December 2025 . Counsel cites Chief Justice (Emeritus) Willy Mutunga in Speaker of the Senate & Another v Attorney-General & Others [2013] eKLR and highlights that implementing social, economic and civil rights under the Bill of Rights requires county governments to generate substantial revenue. It is submitted that under Articles 209(2), (3), and (4) read alongside Schedule 4 of the Constitution , counties possess the mandate to impose taxes and service charges within their devolved scope of functions, which explicitly includes outdoor advertising management.
59. Counsel asserts that the Petition has not met the evidentiary standard for petitions, citing the case of Edward Karanja Chogo v County Government of Kakamega [2018] eKLR and argues constitutional petitions require clear, established facts. Counsel also refers to the Hon. Justice Edward Muriithi’s High Court ruling in Base Titanium Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [2017] KEHC 7040 (KLR) and contends that mere claims or proof of tax payments do not establish a violation of Article 209 (5) . That a petitioner must strictly prove that the levy was so prohibitive that it damaged national economic policies or prevented businesses from operating.
60. It is further submitted that since the P
[...truncated]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E260 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3 (1), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27,174, 209 AND 210 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE FOURTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONTRAVENTION OR BREACH OF ARTICLES 174, 209, 210 AND THE FOURTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE INTERPRETATION, IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT AND CONTRAVENTION/BREACH OF ARTICLES 209, 210 AND THE FOURTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 93, 94 AND 185 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE COUNTY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CONTROL ACT, CAP. 276 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE NAIROBI CITY COUNTY, KAJIADO COUNTY, MACHAKOS COUNTY, NAROK COUNTY, KITUI COUNTY, MAKUENI COUNTY, THARAKA NITHI COUNTY, GARISSA COUNTY, ISIOLO COUNTY, EMBU COUNTY, MURANGA COUNTY, NYERI COUNTY AND KIAMBU COUNTY FINANCE ACTS
-BETWEEN-
CLIFFORD ONYANGO ODHIAMBO ............................................... PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAIROBI ....................... 1 ST RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KAJIADO ...................... 2 ND RESPONDENT THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MACHAKOS ................ 3 RD RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAROK ......................... 4 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KITUI ....……………… 5 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MAKUENI ………........ 6 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF THARAKA NITHI …... 7 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF GARISSA …………….. 8 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF ISIOLO ………….……. 9 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF EMBU …………….… .10 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MURANGA …………. 11 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NYERI ……………..... 12 TH RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KIAMBU ………...….. 13 TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Background
1. The Petitioner Clifford Onyango Odhiambo is an adult Kenyan male of National Identification Card number 27****76 and a practicing Advocate of the High Court of Kenya. All the thirteen Respondents are County Governments and of the 47 devolved governments established under Article 176 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
2. Vide the Petition dated 5 th May 2025, the Petitioner, Clifford Onyango Odhiambo, seeks various constitutional declarations and injunctive orders against the 13 County Governments. The Petitioner challenges the decisions allegedly made by the 13 County Governments imposing advertising taxes, levies or fees on branded motor vehicles operating as moving vehicles passing through or operating in their jurisdictions under their respective County Finance Acts. It is alleged that to compel payment, county officials have been detaining, clamping or denying entry/transit to these moving vehicles.
3. The Petition was initially filed alongside an interlocutory Application dated 5 th May 2025 and the Petitioner’s Supporting Affidavit of even date. However, on 25 th July 2025, the Petitioner formally withdrew his interlocutory Application, effectively withdrawing the supporting affidavit and its annexed exhibits from the record.
4. The Petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:
(a) A declaration that the cess/charge/levy/tax imposed by the Respondent County Governments for advertisements displayed on or in any moving motor vehicles employed as moving vehicles are cess/charge/levy/tax are without justification and not in exchange of a public need, services or amenities contrary to Article 209(4) and (5) of the Constitution of Kenya.
(b) A declaration that the cess/charge/levy/tax imposed by the Respondents County Governments for advertisements displayed on or in any moving motor vehicle employed as a moving vehicle, are in violation of Article 210 (1) of the Constitution as they are taxes without any legislative approval.
(c) A declaration that the detention or denial of transit of motor vehicles with advertisements displayed on or in them whereas they are employed as a moving vehicle through the Respondents’ jurisdictions is in violation of persons fundamental rights under Article 40 (1) to property, fair administrative action under Article 47 and freedom of movement of persons/labour contrary to Article 39 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya.
(d) The imposing of the cess/charges/levies/taxes on motor vehicles employed as moving vehicles with advertisements displayed on or in them by the Respondents prejudices national economic interests, policies and activities and the mobility of goods, services, capital and labour in violation of Article 209 (5) of the Constitution of Kenya.
(e) A permanent injunction be issued barring the 1 st – 13 th Respondents from imposing cess/charge/levy/tax on motor vehicles with advertisements displayed on or in them whereas they are employed as a moving vehicle.
5. The Petitioner asserts that the Respondents are levying taxes on advertisements on moving vehicles without providing any public need or amenity in return and without the required Parliamentary approval, thereby violating Constitutional protections under Articles 209, 210, 39, and 47 of the Constitution . It is averred that county governments cannot impose taxes without Parliamentary authorization and that neither can they do so outside statutory provisions. The Petitioner pleads that the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (Cap 276) explicitly exempts advertisements on vehicles normally employed as moving vehicles licensed in another county.
6. According to the Petitioner, county governments are empowered under Article 209 of the Constitution to raise revenue and levy taxes or charges, but that under Article 209(4), they are only authorized to charge for services they actually provide. He relies on the definition of "Services" as stated by the Supreme Court in Base Titanium Limited v County Government of Mombasa & another (2021), eKLR where "services" is defined as a system providing for a public need or amenity such as county roads, street lighting or traffic control . The Petitioner argues that counties can only impose charges in direct exchange for specific services, a public need or amenity. That in this case, counties offer no service to moving, branded vehicles in return for these taxes.
7. It is the Petitioner’s further case that while county legislative assemblies hold delegated power under Article 1, their authority must comply with the Constitution. He asserts that the presumption that County Finance Acts are constitutional is rebuttable and that under Article 2 of the Constitution, the High Court has the power to declare the Respondents’ Finance Acts null and void for violating Articles 209 and 210 .
8. It is argued that because of this practise by county governments, charging moving vehicles in every county they pass through, amounts to multiple taxation, increases transport costs, inflates prices for goods and services and hinders the mobility of goods, labour and capital across county borders, in violation of Article 209(5) of the Constitution .
9. It is also asserted that detaining or restricting the movement of these vehicles infringes on vehicle owners’ constitutional rights to property under Article 40 , freedom of movement under Article 39 and fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution.
Responses to the Petition
10. In response to the Petition, the 1 st , 6 th , 9 th , 12 th and 13 th Respondents filed their respective responses by way of Replying Affidavits. The 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th 7 th , 8 th , 10 th and 11 th Respondents did not file any responses to the Petition.
11. The 1 st Respondent, which is the City County Government of Nairobi filed its Replying Affidavit dated 4 th December 2025 sworn by Dr. Machel Waikenda, the County Chief Officer in charge of the Mobility Sub-Sector in which it is deposed that the Petition lacks merit, is an abuse of the court process and should be dismissed.
12. The 1 st Respondent contends that Nairobi City County Government operates strictly within its constitutional and legal mandate under Article 209 (3) & (4), Part 2 Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution , the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (Cap 276), the Nairobi City County Finance Act, 2023 and the Nairobi City County Transport Act, 2020.
13. It is deposed that the County Government provides regulatory services in return for outdoor advertising fees, including monitoring compliance with advertising standards, maintaining public amenities and infrastructure impacted by advertising and ensuring road safety, environmental orderliness and aesthetic control.
14. According to the 1 st Respondent, its laws apply strictly to local commercial advertising vehicles operating within Nairobi City County, not to intercounty/transit vehicles merely passing through the City County and that the Petitioner failed to provide any evidence such as invoices, fines, enforcement entries or detention records showing that Nairobi City County has ever charged or detained a transit vehicle licensed in another county.
15. It therefore characterizes the allegations made by the Petitioner as being speculative, unsubstantiated and based on misinterpretation of the law and hypothetical fears rather than proven violations. Additionally, the 1 st Respondent denies infringing on property rights under Article 40, freedom of movement under Article 39 (1) or fair administrative action under Article 47 .
16. It is deposed further that enforcement by the City County Government of Nairobi targets non-compliant local advertisers and strictly follows fair administrative action processes, including notices and internal review/appeal options and that the Petitioner has adduced no evidence showing that the 1 st Respondent’s advertising fees caused price increases for goods/services or restricted cross-county commerce. That accordingly, and in the absence of credible evidence of wrongdoing, the Petition fails the threshold for enforcement of constitutional rights and ought to be dismissed.
17. The 6 th Respondent , the County Government of Makueni filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Boniface Mutua on 28 th November 2025 opposing the Petition and arguing that its outdoor advertising fees are lawful, constitutional and properly enacted under the county legislative authority.
18. The 6 th Respondent asserts that after withdrawing his interlocutory Application, the Petitioner left the main Petition as a "skeleton" devoid of supporting evidence or specific proof of rights violations. It is deposed that under Part 2, Paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution , controlling outdoor advertising is a fully devolved function assigned to county governments. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Base Titanium Ltd v. County Government of Mombasa , the 6 th Respondent through the contends in deposition that under Article 209(4) of the Constitution, it can levy charges in exchange for regulatory services, infrastructure and access to the local audience or market provided to mobile advertisers operating in its area.
19. It is further deposed that the advertising charges are enacted under the Makueni County Finance Act, 2023 pursuant to legislative powers granted by Article 185(2) of the Constitution and that therefore, declaring these fees unconstitutional would cripple county revenue and devolution.
20. The deponent for the 6 th Respondent deposes that the Petitioner failed to show with precision how Makueni County Government specifically violated Articles 10, 40, 47, 176, 209, or 210 of the Constitution and that the Petitioner provided no proof that the 6 th Respondent confiscated property, interfered with vehicle movement or harmed national economic interests. It characterizes the Petitioner’s claims as broad, speculative and failing the pleading threshold established in the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v. Republic (1976) eKLR .
21. The 6 th Respondent County Government avers that Section 3(c)(vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (Cap 276) does not prohibit counties from levying charges on moving vehicles, but rather, that the framework regulates and empowers county governments to do so within constitutional bounds.
22. Citing Section 19 of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act , the deponent asserts that statutory dispute resolution mechanisms must be exhausted before invoking the High Court jurisdiction. It is urges that the petition should be dismissed because the Petitioner jumped directly to litigation without following the prescribed statutory redress mechanisms as set out in Speaker of the National Assembly v. Karume . The 6 th Respondent prays for costs as well.
23. The 9 th Respondent , the County Government of Isiolo filed a Replying Affidavit dated 9 th December 2025 and sworn by Luqman Ahmed, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, Economic Planning & ICT in which it is deposed that under Article 209(2), (3), and (4) and the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 , County Governments are empowered to levy taxes and service fees within their assigned functions, which includes outdoor advertising management.
24. The deponent asserts that the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act vests outdoor advertising management in the County Governments and allows County Assemblies to pass county-specific legislation. Therefore, that there is no conflict between the relevant laws and the Isiolo County Finance Act, 2023 , which is constitutional and lawful.
25. It is deposed that the fees collected from outdoor advertising are lawfully charged and applied toward service delivery for the residents of Isiolo County and that under Section 3(c)(vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act, vehicles operating in transit are exempt from applying for an outdoor advertising licence only if they hold a valid licence from another county.
26. The deponent swears that the Petitioner withdrew their interlocutory Application dated 5 th May 2025, thereby failing to tender evidence in support of their key assertions and that even if the Court analysed the Petitioner’s Exhibit (CO-41), there is no proof that specific motor vehicles being KBP 432B, KDG 221P, KDD 051P and KDM 153C possessed a valid advertising licence from another county before applying for branding in Isiolo County. That in the absence of proof of licensing from another county, the 9 th Respondent was legally justified in levying the vehicle branding fee of Kshs. 20,000/= per vehicle.
27. Citing the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (No. 1) [1979] KLR 154 , the 9 th Respondent contends that the Petition lacks reasonable precision regarding what specific constitutional provisions or rights were violated by Isiolo County Government and further contends that the Petition is an abuse of court process. The 9 th Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs.
28. The 12 th Respondent, the County Government of Nyeri opposes the Petition through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Edward Irungu Mwangi the County Secretary, on 5 th November 2025 . He deposes that its advertising fees are constitutional, statutory and reasonable and that the Petition is incompetent, devoid of merit and should be dismissed with costs.
29. The deponent states that under Part 2, Paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, controlling outdoor advertising is a devolved function assigned to County Governments. Further, that pursuant to Article 209(4) of the Constitution , the fees levied on outdoor advertising including moving vehicles are regulatory service charges, not taxes requiring Parliamentary approval. That these fees fund active regulatory activities such as preventing visual clutter, conducting road-safety inspections and preserving environmental aesthetics.
30. It is deposed that the fee structure is established under Section 21 of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (COACA) and operationalized via the Nyeri County Finance Act, 2023 . That Section 3(c)(vi) COACA provides that an exemption from outdoor advertising fees applies conditionally only to transit vehicles holding a valid outdoor advertising licence from another county.
31. It is their deposition that the Petitioner failed to provide proof that any affected vehicles held a licence from another county, making the claim for exemption legally unsustainable. Further, that vehicles primarily used for transport and logistics that carry corporate branding do not fall under the statutory exclusions and remain subject to county regulatory oversight.
32. They assert that the Petitioner withdrew his interlocutory Application dated 5 th May 2025 pursuant to a Court Order dated 25 th July 2025 and that this withdrawal effectively removed the supporting evidence and annexures such as payment receipts from the court record, leaving the Petition unsupported.
33. The deponent avers that the Petitioner provided no admissible evidence demonstrating unlawful detention, denial of transit or breach of rights under Articles 39 on freedom of movement, Article 40 on property rights or Article 47 on fair administrative action.
34. The 13 th Respondent, the County Government of Kiambu filed a Replying Affidavit filed in opposition to the Petition dated 16 th October 2025. The Replying Affidavit is sworn by Waithira Waiyaki, the County Attorney. She deposes that the County Government’s regulation and fee levies on outdoor advertising including moving branded vehicles are constitutional, statutory, reasonable and necessary.
35. That under Part 2, Paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution , the control and regulation of outdoor advertising is exclusively assigned to county governments and that pursuant to Article 209(4) of the Constitution , counties are authorized to impose service charges for regulating outdoor advertising.
36. It is deposed that moving branded vehicles utilize county roads and public amenities, exposing local residents to commercial advertising for the benefit of the advertiser, which justifies regulatory charges. The deponent also states that charges are passed via County Finance Acts and the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, following required public participation and approval by County Assemblies as required under the constitution.
37. It is contended that the Petitioner’s reliance on the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act, Cap 276 is misplaced and untenable. The 13 th Respondent argues that Parliament acted ultra vires in enacting legislation on a devolved county function. That even under Section 2 of Cap 276, the definition of a "vehicle" excludes those used primarily for displaying advertisements. Thus, that the Act does not bar county regulation of mobile billboard vehicles.
38. The deponent asserts that under Regulation 6 of the Physical and Land Use Planning (Advertisement) Regulations (Legal Notice 242 of 2021), vehicles primarily used as mobile billboards or advertising displays are not exempt from approval fees.
39. The 13 th Respondent avers that regulating mobile advertisements ensures equitable revenue sharing among counties where vehicles circulate, preventing unjust enrichment of a single licensing county at the expense of other counties whose residents view the advertisements.
40. The 13 th Respondent through its deponent denies any violation of Articles 39 on freedom of movement, Article 40 on property rights, Article 47 on fair administrative action, or Article 210 on taxation principles. Further, that the regulation does not hinder the transit of goods or national economic interests; rather, it maintains orderly outdoor advertising and transparent revenue collection.
41. The 13 th Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs, citing it as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
42. The parties took directions to canvass the Petition by way of written submissions which are now on record and are summarized as hereunder.
Submissions
43. The Petitioner’s Submissions are dated 10 th November 2025. He submits on four issues namely:
i. whether by failing to approve Finance Bills each year, the Respondents have violated Articles 196 (b) and 209 (3) of the Constitution of Kenya;
ii. Whether the Respondents are imposing cess on branded moving motor vehicles without providing any service in return contrary to Article 209 (4) of the Constitution of Kenya;
iii. Whether the enactment of the Nairobi City County Finance Act, 2023 by the 1 st Respondent or by the other Respondents violated the constitutional principles of public participation under Articles 10, 174, 196, and 201 of the Constitution due to the absence of a Tariffs and Pricing Policy and
iv. whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.
44. On the first issue of failure to enact annual Finance Bills being in violation of Articles 196(b) & 209(3) of the Constitution , the Petitioner submits that under Sections 131 and 133 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA ), county governments are required to pass Appropriation and Finance Bills annually by 30 th June and approve Finance Bills within 90 days of passing the Appropriation Bill. The Petitioner produced exhibits CO-3 to CO-15 to demonstrate that the Respondent County Governments are relying on outdated Finance Acts.
45. The Petitioner submits that continuing to levy fees/cess using outdated Finance Acts bypasses annual public participation required under Article 196(b) of the Constitution . Citing Nyabuto v County Assembly of Nairobi City County & 2 others; Commission on Revenue Allocation (Interested Party) (Petition E040 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 8865 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights), the Petitioner highlights that County Assemblies abdicate oversight and breach Article 47 on Fair Administrative Action and PFMA duties when they pass fiscal measures without proper policy frameworks like a Tariffs and Pricing Policy.
46. On the second issue of imposition of charges without providing services being in violation of Article 209(4), the Petitioner submits that he submitted invoices and receipts CO-16 to CO-76 showing fees levied on owners of moving branded vehicles. He further relies on the definition of "Service" by the Supreme Court in Base Titanium Limited v County Government of Mombasa [2021] KESC 33 (KLR ), and submits that "charges" under Article 209(4) can only be levied in exchange for a public service, need or amenity.
47. He further submits that those counties provide no service to moving branded vehicles carrying goods or people across county lines and therefore, charging solely for being branded inflates consumer prices. He further submits that the county charges on inter-county transit run counter to national economic policies, disrupting the movement of goods, capital, and labour impeding economic mobility under Article 209(5) of the Constitution .
48. The Petitioner in his submissions also refutes Kiambu County Government’s claim that fees are justified because vehicles use county roads. He argues that the Fourth Schedule limits road-user fees to toll charges in approved Finance Bills. Furthermore, that Section 3(c)(vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act explicitly exempts moving vehicles licensed in another county.
49. On the third issue of unconstitutionality of County Finance Acts due to lack of Tariffs & Pricing Policy, the Petitioner cites Nyabuto v County Assembly of Nairobi City County & 2 others; Commission on Revenue Allocation (Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 8865 (KLR) where the High Court held that the Nairobi’s Finance Act 2023 was unconstitutional for lacking a Tariffs and Pricing Policy, rendering its public participation flawed. That, consequently, Section 3 of the Nairobi Finance Act, 2023 imposing Kshs. 13,650–15,000 per fortnight on branded moving vehicles, along with similar provisions in other Respondents’ Finance Acts are null and void.
50. The Petitioner invokes the Court’s Remedial Powers under Articles 23(3), 165, and 259, of the Constitution to declare unconstitutional statutes invalid and grant remedies such as injunctions or declarations. He urges the Court to declare the county charges inconsistent with Articles 47, 196(b), 209 and 210 of the Constitution, following the precedents set in the Base Titanium and Nyabuto cases (supra).
The Respondents’ Submissions
51. The County Government of Makueni the 6 th Respondent’s submissions are dated 15 th December 2025 in which Counsel isolates five issues for determination being:
i. Whether the 6 th Respondent has the Constitutional and the statutory mandate under the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act Cap 76 Laws of Kenya to impose charges and levies for outdoor advertising including advertisements displayed in any moving vehicles;
ii. Whether the Petitioner has demonstrated any violation of fundamental rights under Articles 10, 47, 176, 209 and 210 of the Constitution; Whether Section 3 (c) (vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act, Cap 76 Laws of Kenya bars the Respondents from imposing levies and charges on moving vehicles;
iii. Whether the Petitioner has exhausted all the available mechanisms before filing the Petition; and
iv. Whether the Petition discloses a justiciable cause of action against the 6 th Respondent.
52. As a preliminary issue, Counsel notes that while the Petitioner filed an application on 5 th May 2025 alongside the Petition, he subsequently withdrew it on 27 th July 2025, leaving the Petition without supporting evidence. On the first issue, it is submitted that under Part 2, Paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule as well as Article 176 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya , 2010, controlling outdoor advertising is a fully devolved function assigned to County Governments. Citing Article 209 (4) of the Constitution , Counsel contends that charges levied for outdoor advertising are service fees for monitoring and regulating advertising space rather than taxes requiring Parliamentary approval under Article 209 (3) (c) .
53. On the second issue, it is submitted that moving branded vehicles utilize county infrastructure such as roads, public amenities and local visibility to gain a commercial advantage, which justifies regulatory charges imposed via the Makueni County Finance Act, 2023. Counsel cites the case of Base Titanium Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [2021] KESC 33 (KLR) to affirm that county governments have the constitutional discretion to impose charges in exchange for public amenities and services.
54. On the third issue of statutory interpretation of Section 3(c)(vi), Counsel for the 6 th Respondent argues that Section 3(c)(vi) of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act (Cap. 276) does not prohibit counties from charging fees on moving vehicles. Instead, that it empowers county governments to lawfully regulate and levy charges on such outdoor advertisements within their jurisdiction.
55. On the fourth issue, it is submitted that Section 19 of the County Outdoor Advertising Control Act requires parties to a dispute to exhaust statutory or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms prior to approaching the High Court. Citing the case of Geoffrey Muthinja v Samuel Mugura Henry [2015] KECA 304 and Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume [1992] eKLR , Counsel argues that the Court should decline jurisdiction because the Petitioner prematurely filed the Petition without utilizing the mandatory statutory dispute resolution channels.
56. Counsel argues that the Petition is in breach of pleadings rule. Citing the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KLR 154 , Counsel contends that constitutional claims must be pleaded with a high degree of precision. That in this case, the Petitioner failed to provide concrete evidence showing how Makueni County specifically violated Articles 10, 40, 47, 176, 209, or 210 or how his private property was seized or damaged.
57. Counsel for the 6 th Respondent submits that it acted entirely within its constitutional and statutory mandate and prays that the High Court dismisses the Petition with costs awarded to the County Government of Makueni.
58. T he 9 th Respondent, the County Government of Isiolo, filed submissions which are dated 15 th December 2025 . Counsel cites Chief Justice (Emeritus) Willy Mutunga in Speaker of the Senate & Another v Attorney-General & Others [2013] eKLR and highlights that implementing social, economic and civil rights under the Bill of Rights requires county governments to generate substantial revenue. It is submitted that under Articles 209(2), (3), and (4) read alongside Schedule 4 of the Constitution , counties possess the mandate to impose taxes and service charges within their devolved scope of functions, which explicitly includes outdoor advertising management.
59. Counsel asserts that the Petition has not met the evidentiary standard for petitions, citing the case of Edward Karanja Chogo v County Government of Kakamega [2018] eKLR and argues constitutional petitions require clear, established facts. Counsel also refers to the Hon. Justice Edward Muriithi’s High Court ruling in Base Titanium Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [2017] KEHC 7040 (KLR) and contends that mere claims or proof of tax payments do not establish a violation of Article 209 (5) . That a petitioner must strictly prove that the levy was so prohibitive that it damaged national economic policies or prevented businesses from operating.
60. It is further submitted that since the P
[...truncated]