Market Stall Disputes Put Kenya’s Devolution System Under Scrutiny

Jurisdictional disagreements between national government security agencies and county executive officers over public market management are raising important questions about the implementation of devolution in Kenya. The debate centres on the administration of public trading facilities, the allocation of market stalls, the maintenance of public order and the division of responsibilities between the two levels of government.

Public markets remain important economic centres, supporting small-scale traders, farmers, food vendors, transport operators and other businesses across the country. Their effective administration requires clear rules governing stall allocation, revenue collection, sanitation, infrastructure maintenance and security. Confusion over which institution holds authority can disrupt these services, create uncertainty among traders and weaken confidence in public administration.

Read Also: Pharmacy Board Looks to Shape Future of Pharmaceutical Practice

The Constitution of Kenya establishes separate but interdependent national and county governments, each with defined responsibilities. Article 189 provides the foundation for cooperation between the two levels, requiring them to respect each other’s functional and institutional integrity and make reasonable efforts to resolve disputes. The challenge is ensuring that security operations, public infrastructure projects and county market administration function within this constitutional framework.

“Resolving intergovernmental disputes regarding public infrastructure requires strict adherence to constitutional consultation mechanisms,” noted a public law advocate in Nairobi.

“Without joint administrative frameworks deposited with Parliament, municipal project handovers trigger repeated operational friction.”

The observation highlights the importance of documented agreements, clear administrative procedures and effective dispute-resolution mechanisms. However, the precise details of any particular market dispute, including the existence and scope of specific security directives, must be established through official records before claims about individual institutions can be confirmed.

Constitutional Powers Behind Public Market Management

Kenya’s devolution framework distributes responsibilities between the national government and county governments through the Constitution. Article 6 recognises the two levels of government, while Article 189 establishes principles intended to guide their cooperation.

The Fourth Schedule assigns county governments responsibilities covering county planning and development, markets, trade development and regulation, alongside other local services. These functions provide the constitutional basis for county involvement in the development and administration of public trading facilities.

County administrations therefore have an important role in determining how local markets operate, maintaining facilities within their mandate, regulating trading activities and establishing lawful procedures for allocating available stalls. Their responsibilities also extend to ensuring that market infrastructure supports economic activity while meeting applicable public health, planning and financial management requirements.

National government security agencies operate under a different constitutional mandate. Article 239 identifies the Kenya Defence Forces, the National Intelligence Service and the National Police Service as the national security organs. The National Police Service has responsibilities relating to public safety, law and order, the protection of life and property, and crime prevention.

The distinction between these functions is essential. Responsibility for public security does not automatically give a national agency authority to administer commercial stalls or assume routine control of a county market. Equally, county responsibility for market management does not exempt county officials, traders or other persons from lawful police action when security concerns arise.

The appropriate approach is coordination within clearly defined legal boundaries. Each institution should understand its responsibilities, the limits of its authority and the procedures to follow when an operation affects the functions of another government.

Article 189 Provides a Framework for Cooperation

Article 189 of the Constitution requires national and county governments to conduct their mutual relations through consultation and cooperation. It also provides for assistance between the two levels and requires reasonable efforts to settle disputes through alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms.

These principles are particularly relevant when a public market is constructed, renovated, transferred or placed under a new administrative arrangement involving multiple government institutions.

A market project may involve national funding, implementation by a national agency, county land-use responsibilities and eventual management by a county administration. Unless the parties agree on their respective obligations, questions can emerge over maintenance costs, access control, revenue collection, security deployment and responsibility for operational decisions.

Written handover agreements can help prevent these problems. Such documents should identify the institution responsible for operating the facility, the authority managing stall allocations, the party responsible for maintenance and the procedures governing security coordination.

Read Also: Top Comoros Official Hospitalized in Nairobi Amid Rising Tensions in Moroni

The Intergovernmental Relations Act, 2012 provides a statutory framework for cooperation and dispute resolution between the national and county governments. Its mechanisms offer an avenue for addressing disagreements through structured engagement rather than allowing conflicting instructions to undermine public services.

Consultation should not be treated as an administrative formality. It should provide a practical means of resolving competing interpretations of legal responsibilities, clarifying operational arrangements and preventing disagreements from affecting traders.

Transparent Stall Allocation Remains a Governance Priority

The allocation of public market stalls is one of the most sensitive areas of county administration because access to a trading space can determine whether a small business survives.

Unclear allocation procedures can create opportunities for favouritism, unauthorised transfers, double allocation and disputes over occupancy. Traders may also face uncertainty when market facilities are renovated, relocated or transferred between public institutions without clear communication about their existing rights and obligations.

County governments can strengthen accountability by maintaining accurate stall registers, publishing allocation criteria and providing written confirmation to successful applicants. The records should identify available spaces, approved occupants, applicable fees and the conditions under which an allocation may be renewed or terminated.

Digital registers could further improve transparency by allowing authorised officers to verify occupancy records and identify inconsistencies. Publicly accessible information about allocation procedures would also help traders understand the requirements and reduce reliance on informal intermediaries.

Disputed allocations should be handled through established administrative procedures that give affected traders an opportunity to present their cases. Decisions involving eviction, confiscation of property or restrictions on access must comply with applicable laws and respect the rights of those affected.

Security agencies may support lawful operations where there is a genuine public safety concern, but routine commercial allocation decisions should remain with the institution legally responsible for market administration.

Public Order Requires Coordinated Security Arrangements

Markets often experience congestion, theft, fire risks, disputes between traders and conflicts involving pedestrians or transport operators. Effective management therefore requires coordination between county market administrators, county enforcement officers, emergency services and the National Police Service.

The absence of agreed procedures can result in conflicting instructions, uncertainty over reporting lines and delays when incidents require an immediate response.

A joint operational framework could identify the responsibilities of market managers, establish emergency communication channels and specify the circumstances under which police assistance should be requested. It could also provide procedures for managing major incidents while ensuring that ordinary trading activities continue whenever safely possible.

County officers should understand the limits of their enforcement powers, while national security personnel should operate within their constitutional and statutory mandates. Neither level should use overlapping responsibilities as justification for disregarding the lawful functions of the other.

Public participation should also form part of market governance. Traders’ associations, residents and market committees can help identify security weaknesses, congestion problems and shortcomings in allocation procedures.

Regular consultation would allow authorities to develop practical solutions based on the needs of businesses and the wider community. Clear complaint channels could also help resolve disputes before they escalate into confrontations or prolonged interruptions to commercial activity.

Governance Responsibilities Under Kenya’s Legal Framework

The following table summarises the principal constitutional responsibilities relevant to public market management and intergovernmental oversight.

Article 189 complements these provisions by requiring cooperation between national and county governments. The Constitution of Kenya and the Intergovernmental Relations Act provide important reference points for determining the responsibilities of the institutions involved.

Parliamentary Oversight Could Strengthen Accountability

Parliamentary committees can play an important role in examining whether public institutions are complying with the law, managing public resources properly and implementing government projects according to their approved mandates.

The National Assembly and Senate have distinct constitutional responsibilities. Article 95 outlines the National Assembly’s functions, while Article 96 establishes the Senate’s role in representing counties, participating in legislation concerning counties and overseeing national revenue allocated to county governments.

These mandates should guide any parliamentary examination of disagreements involving market facilities. Relevant committees may investigate matters falling within their jurisdiction, seek explanations from responsible institutions and recommend appropriate legislative or administrative action.

Oversight could focus on whether public market projects have documented handover agreements, whether the responsible authorities have established clear operational procedures and whether public funds have been used for their intended purposes.

Article 125 also provides Parliament and its committees with powers to summon witnesses, subject to the Constitution and applicable law. These powers can support accountability when a matter falls within a committee’s lawful mandate.

However, parliamentary oversight should not be confused with direct market administration. Parliament does not replace county officers responsible for routine stall allocation, nor should general oversight be interpreted as authority to direct security operations outside constitutional limits.

The objective should be to establish whether institutions are fulfilling their legal responsibilities and to address weaknesses that contribute to recurring disputes.

The Importance of Documented Project Handovers

Public infrastructure projects require clear arrangements covering ownership, management, maintenance and security. These issues become particularly important when several government institutions contribute funding, land, technical expertise or construction services.

A documented handover should identify the receiving authority, outstanding construction obligations, maintenance responsibilities and procedures for addressing operational problems. Where security arrangements affect the facility, the relevant institutions should agree on communication channels and lawful procedures for coordinating operations.

The documentation should be accessible to authorised oversight institutions and disclosed publicly where required by law. Financial records, procurement documents and allocation registers should also be maintained in accordance with the applicable legal requirements.

County governments could strengthen their systems through standardised handover templates, periodic market inspections and regular reporting on occupancy, revenue collection and maintenance expenditure.

Read Also: KNEC Grade 10 Assessment 2026: Guidelines, Timelines & School Requirements 

These measures would help distinguish administrative failures from genuine security incidents, making it easier to identify the institution responsible for corrective action.

Conclusion: Protecting Devolution Through Clear Responsibilities

Disagreements over public market management highlight the importance of translating Kenya’s constitutional devolution framework into practical administrative arrangements. National security agencies must perform their lawful duties, while county governments must exercise the functions assigned to them over markets and local trade regulation.

Article 189 establishes a clear expectation of cooperation and consultation. The Intergovernmental Relations Act provides additional mechanisms for managing disagreements, while parliamentary oversight can help strengthen accountability within the respective mandates of the National Assembly and Senate.

The priority should be to establish transparent stall-allocation procedures, documented infrastructure handovers and coordinated security arrangements that protect traders, public assets and economic activity.

Effective devolution depends on more than defining responsibilities in law. It requires public institutions to respect those responsibilities, resolve disputes through established mechanisms and remain accountable to the people they serve. Kenya’s public markets need precisely that approach: clear authority, transparent administration and cooperation that keeps livelihoods and public services at the centre of decision-making.