The High Court has halted the contentious Sh2.1 billion roads project agreement between Nakuru County and the National Youth Service (NYS). The court has also deemed urgent a petition submitted by Paul Muchiri and Kepha Omuyoma, who argued that the deal was signed without following procurement procedures or involving public participation.

The petitioners have asked the court to issue conservatory orders barring both the county and the NYS from implementing the agreement, which was signed on November 7, 2025.

They further wanted the county barred from approving or realizing any payments to NYS until the petition was heard and determined.

In his ruling, Justice Julius Nangea certified the matter as urgent and issued the conservatory orders until the January 19, 2026, when the petition is slated for mention.

The judge directed the county and NYS to file their responses within seven days and that all parties file and exchange their written submissions within 21 days.

Last week, the county entered into an MOU with NYS to maintain all the feeder roads under the Imarisha Barabara programme over the next year.

Following the court orders, MCAs and leaders from Nakuru welcomed the decision accusing Governor Susan Kihika of flouting the law and surpassing the County Assembly in decision making.

While welcoming the court’s decision, Naivasha East MCA Stanley Karanja accused the executive of intimidating the ward leaders to give in to the controversial MOU.

The MCA wondered why the county was kin to use NYS machinery and personnel yet the two previous governors had procured roads equipment that were lying idle.

He argued that the county had ignored the Public Procurement and asset disposal act which gave opportunities to youths, women and the disabled a chance to get job opportunities.

Karanja challenged his fellow MCAs to rise to the occasion and perform their oversight duty and not to be intimidated by some county officers who are benefiting from this deal.

Another leader, Edward Maina said that the county had failed to subject the MOU to mandatory public participation, denying residents the opportunity to approve the process.