High Court declares politicians’ Personal branding of publicly funded projects unconstitutional
The court ordered the removal of personal branding from public projects in Kajiado North following a constitutional petition.
The High Court in Kajiado has declared the personal branding of publicly funded development projects unconstitutional, ruling that infrastructure financed through public resources must not be used to promote individual politicians.
The judgment, reported on Tuesday, 27 October 2026, also directed the removal of politicians’ personal names from publicly funded projects in Kajiado North, where a constitutional petition challenged the use of political branding on public infrastructure.
The case was filed by Shadrack Wambui through Sheria Mtaani against Kajiado North Member of Parliament Onesmus Ngogoyo, following allegations that public development projects carried the legislator’s name, image and political slogans.
The petitioner argued that roads, schools, dispensaries and other publicly financed facilities were being presented in ways that promoted an individual political officeholder rather than recognising their funding through public resources.
According to the petition, some projects bearing the disputed branding had reportedly been initiated before Ngogoyo assumed office. The petitioner questioned whether such displays created a misleading impression about responsibility for their development.
The court agreed with the broader constitutional objection to personal branding, finding that the practice violated national values and principles of governance governing the use of public resources.
However, the court did not find sufficient evidence that Ngogoyo personally authorised the installation of the disputed signage or instructed others to undertake the branding on his behalf.
That distinction is important because the declaration concerning the constitutionality of personal branding was separate from the question of whether the legislator could be held personally responsible for the particular installations.
The ruling adds judicial weight to concerns previously raised by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) about the use of government-funded infrastructure and programmes for political promotion.
In June 2026, EACC warned public officers against placing their names, portraits, political party symbols or other personal identifiers on projects financed through public resources.
The commission cited constitutional provisions on national values, leadership, integrity and public finance, alongside legislation governing the management of public resources and the conduct of public officers.
EACC directed public entities to ensure that project identification boards reflect the responsible government institution and the relevant national or county government funding arrangements without promoting individual officeholders.
The distinction is particularly relevant to construction and infrastructure projects, where signboards commonly identify the client, implementing agency, contractor, consultants, project scope, contract value and expected completion period.
Such information serves practical purposes, including helping the public identify responsible institutions, monitor project implementation and understand how public resources are being applied.
Personal portraits, political slogans and promotional messages serve a different purpose from technical project identification. The court’s ruling addresses the use of publicly financed developments for individual political branding.
The issue has also attracted parliamentary scrutiny. A Senate committee previously examined complaints about governors and members of county assemblies placing their names and photographs on government-funded projects and public assets.
The committee called for stronger oversight and clearer guidelines to distinguish legitimate project information from political promotion financed through public funds.
The latest judgment does not establish that every politician whose name appears on a public facility has personally committed an offence. Individual responsibility depends on the evidence and circumstances of each case.
Similarly, the removal orders reported in the Kajiado North case should be distinguished from the wider constitutional declaration concerning personal branding of publicly funded projects.
For construction authorities, implementing agencies and contractors, the decision reinforces the importance of keeping official project signage focused on verified development information and institutional accountability.
The judgment places renewed attention on how public infrastructure is presented to communities, particularly where project branding could obscure the distinction between government investment and the political activities of individual officeholders.
Reach Kenya’s construction industry.
Get your brand in front of contractors, architects, engineers & developers.
Partner With Us →
