NAIROBI, Kenya — Nairobi’s construction approval system is facing renewed scrutiny following the collapse of a multi-storey building in Eastleigh, as rescue teams search for seven people reported missing and former county official Geoffrey Mosiria claims he previously tried to stop construction at the site.
The latest developments have raised questions about how buildings proceed from planning applications to construction, how county enforcement orders are implemented and whether officials who identify possible violations have sufficient authority to stop work.
The building collapsed on Friday, October 23, along 9th Street near Yusuf Haji Avenue, bringing commercial activity in the area to a standstill and triggering a multi-agency rescue operation.
By Saturday, October 24, Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen said all 67 construction workers who had been at the site had been accounted for. One worker was injured, while 66 escaped unharmed.
However, seven other people believed to have been inside 11 shops operating on the building’s ground floor and basement remained unaccounted for, according to reports from the scene. The search had entered its second day, with rescue teams working to reach the lower sections of the collapsed structure.
The Kenya Red Cross separately reported that two injured people had been taken to Kenyatta National Hospital and that 26 people previously reported missing had been traced and accounted for.
A tracing desk was established to help families establish the whereabouts of their relatives.
The updates concern different stages of the search and identification process. The priority remains to locate those still unaccounted for and establish a reliable record of everyone who was inside the building when it collapsed.
Mosiria says he tried to stop construction
The collapse has brought renewed attention to claims by Mosiria, a former Nairobi City County chief officer, that he previously intervened against construction at the Eastleigh site.
In a statement reported by K24 Digital on Saturday, Mosiria said he had attempted to stop night-time construction at the building but was instructed by his former boss to stay away from the site.
“Hii nyumba imeanguka Eastleigh, I once stopped its night construction!” Mosiria stated.
Mosiria alleged that his experience reflected the difficulties faced by county officers seeking to enforce construction regulations, claiming that officers who raise concerns can face pressure from their superiors.
He also linked his account to an earlier construction project in South C, where he said he had stopped work before the building later collapsed.
He alleged that two environment officers were suspended following that intervention and that he was subsequently transferred from the Environment Department to Customer Care.
These are Mosiria’s claims and have not been independently established by the reports reviewed.
They raise questions that investigators could examine, including whether an enforcement intervention was documented, who issued any subsequent instructions and whether construction continued despite a formal stop order.
The allegations also come amid a separate political development: Mosiria was recently removed from his role as chief officer for Public Participation, Citizen Engagement and Customer Service following an administrative reshuffle announced by Governor Johnson Sakaja.
His account should therefore be tested against county correspondence, inspection reports, enforcement records and statements from the officials involved rather than treated as proof of wrongdoing.
Contradictory accounts over Eastleigh building approval
A major question concerns whether the collapsed building had the necessary construction approval.
Initial reports following the collapse carried statements suggesting the building had received county approval but lacked an occupation certificate.
However, in a fresh account published on Saturday, Sakaja said county records showed that an application to construct a 15-storey building with a basement had never been approved.
“We’ve looked at the documentation. An application was made to do 15 plus basement. The application was never granted, meaning there is no approval for this construction,” Sakaja said.
The Governor said a change-of-user application for the property had been approved in 2024, but the subsequent application for the building itself had not received approval.
The distinction is critical. Permission to change the permitted use of a property is not the same as approval to construct a particular building. Nor does either automatically establish that a completed structure has met the requirements for occupation.
Sakaja said the Urban Planning Committee had raised concerns in November 2024 about a proposal involving basement and ground-floor shops.
He also said an enforcement order had been issued earlier this year, raising further questions about how construction proceeded.
The National Construction Authority (NCA), meanwhile, identified the developer, contractor and professionals listed in its records for the project, which it said was registered on July 30, 2025.
Its records named 9th Street Plaza Limited as the developer, Stromax Holdings E.A Limited as the contractor, Emmanuel Mwangi Maina as the project architect and Joseph Muturi Mugu as the structural engineer.
The available reports do not establish whether those listed in the records were aware of any alleged irregularities or whether their professional work contributed to the collapse. Those questions require investigation.
The differing accounts of the approval status also need to be reconciled through the underlying county files, including the original application, committee minutes, inspection reports, enforcement notices and any correspondence authorising work.
City Hall’s approval system already under scrutiny
The Eastleigh disaster is not the first time Nairobi’s planning and development-control processes have faced allegations of irregular approvals and weak enforcement.
In February 2026, the Commission on Administrative Justice, commonly known as the Ombudsman, petitioned the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider action against five Nairobi City County officials over alleged irregular approvals involving a different development in Eastleigh.
The case followed a complaint by Coldstone Investment Limited concerning a neighbouring development by Khaleej Towers Limited. The dispute involved allegations of breaches of planning and zoning rules, inadequate setbacks, encroachment and failures to enforce stop orders.
The commission said approvals in that separate case were irregular and lacked transparency. It also identified weaknesses in the county’s development-control process, including an approval letter issued before the relevant technical committee deliberations and final ratification. The commission recommended further investigations and disciplinary measures.
That case is distinct from the building that collapsed on October 23. It does not establish that the same officials, developers or approval irregularities were involved in the latest disaster.
However, it provides documented context for the broader questions now facing City Hall: whether applications are properly scrutinised, whether technical objections are resolved before approval, and whether stop orders are enforced when developers continue work.
The central issue is not simply whether an approval document exists. It is whether the county’s procedures reliably ensure that construction complies with planning requirements, approved designs and safety standards—and whether violations trigger timely action.
South C collapse raised similar questions
The collapse of a building under construction in South C on January 2, 2026, had already exposed concerns about construction enforcement in Nairobi.
According to reporting by Citizen Digital, county enforcement teams had flagged the project in May, July and December 2025 after the developer allegedly continued construction beyond the approved height.
The report said enforcement action had included instructions to stop work and resubmit plans for reassessment, but construction continued.
The National Construction Authority’s subsequent report said the South C project had been registered in November 2023 and that its approved structural designs provided for a 12-storey building.
The authority reported that two bodies had been recovered from the debris by January 7 and said a formal inquiry would examine the circumstances of the collapse and determine liability. It also outlined plans for a broader compliance audit of buildings.
The South C incident and the Eastleigh collapse are separate cases, and their causes should not be assumed to be identical.
But both have raised questions about the effectiveness of inspections, the handling of alleged non-compliance and whether enforcement action can prevent construction from proceeding in unsafe or unauthorised circumstances.
Other collapses have kept the issue in the public eye. The 2016 collapse in Huruma killed more than 37 people, while a building collapse in the Juja Road area of Eastleigh was reported to have caused four deaths.
More recently, a building housing Club Avenida on Moi Avenue collapsed during a planned demolition on October 17, 2026, injuring four people.
Each incident has its own circumstances. Taken together, however, they underscore why building safety cannot depend solely on enforcement after a structure fails.
The bureaucracy behind construction approvals
The approval process involves several distinct stages: land-use permissions, development plans, technical assessments, construction approvals, inspections and authorisation for occupation.
Different county departments and national regulators may have responsibilities at different points.
The Eastleigh case raises questions about whether those stages were followed and whether any warnings or enforcement orders were acted upon.
If a building application was never approved, investigators need to establish how construction advanced to a multi-storey structure and whether enforcement officers attempted to halt the work.
If an order was issued, the records should show when it was served, what action followed and whether the site was reinspected.
If qualified professionals were listed on the project, investigators should establish what work they undertook, whether they supervised construction as required and whether any of them withdrew from the project before the collapse.
The county must also explain how it tracks applications that are rejected or remain unresolved, how construction is monitored after approval and how suspected violations are escalated to enforcement officers and prosecutors.
These are questions of institutional accountability, not proof that a particular officer or professional is culpable.
Sakaja has argued that weak penalties and delays in prosecution undermine enforcement. KBC reported that he said more than 200 construction-related files were pending at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
He renewed his call for county governments to regain prosecutorial powers and said the county had forwarded documents related to the Eastleigh building to police and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations.
The status of those files, the reasons for any delays and the legal arrangements governing prosecution are matters that require further clarification from the relevant authorities.
What Mosiria’s allegations put on the table
Mosiria has argued that corruption, the cost of approvals and pressure on enforcement officers can undermine construction safety.
He has also called for a wider inspection of buildings across Nairobi and proposed measures such as body cameras for officers conducting site inspections.
Those proposals have not been independently evaluated here, and his allegations about pressure from senior officials remain unverified.
But the issues he has raised point to practical questions that the county can answer through records and transparent procedures.
A credible investigation would establish whether the Eastleigh site had been inspected, what inspectors recorded, whether any notices were issued and who was responsible for following up.
It should also disclose the status of the construction application, the relevant committee decisions and the basis on which work was allowed to continue.
Where officers or professionals are found to have breached their legal duties, the appropriate disciplinary or criminal process should follow. Equally, individuals should not be publicly declared culpable before evidence has been tested.
For developers, a transparent approval system should provide clear requirements, predictable timelines and a documented process for resolving objections.
For residents and traders, it should provide confidence that buildings are inspected and that enforcement does not depend on personal influence or selective intervention.
Rescue operation remains the immediate priority
As the regulatory questions grow, the immediate priority remains the search for the people still unaccounted for in Eastleigh.
The rescue operation involves the Kenya Defence Forces, National Police Service, Nairobi City County, National Youth Service, Kenya Red Cross and other emergency agencies.
Teams have been clearing debris to reach lower sections of the building, while officials have warned that the site is delicate and requires careful coordination to avoid creating further danger.
Reports that debris removal was temporarily suspended over concerns about the oxygen supply of people believed to be trapped have added to the urgency and complexity of the operation.
Also Read: Sakaja seeks tougher penalties for developers after Eastleigh building collapse
Responders were reported to have paused excavator work while considering how to proceed safely. The latest reports reviewed did not establish that all missing people had been located.
Families seeking information about missing relatives have been urged to contact the Kenya Red Cross through its toll-free line, 1199. The agency has also maintained a tracing desk to help establish who has been accounted for.
The cause of the Eastleigh collapse remains undetermined. The absence of an approved building plan, as stated by the governor, and the alleged history of intervention at the site are significant lines of inquiry, but neither by itself establishes the structural cause of the collapse or individual criminal responsibility.
The lasting test for Nairobi will be whether the investigations produce more than statements of condemnation: a clear account of how construction proceeded, accountability where evidence supports it, and changes to ensure that rejected applications, inspection findings and stop orders cannot simply be ignored.
For now, the search for those still missing continues. The wider investigation must establish not only why the building fell, but whether the systems meant to prevent such a disaster failed—and, if so, how.
