NAIROBI, Kenya – The High Court has declared the personal branding of projects funded by public resources unconstitutional, directing the removal of politicians’ personal name branding from publicly funded developments in Kajiado North.
The ruling draws a distinction between the use of public infrastructure for personal political visibility and the constitutional principles governing the management of taxpayers’ money.
The case was filed by Shadrack Wambui through Sheria Mtaani against Kajiado North MP Onesmus Ngogoyo, following allegations that roads, schools and dispensaries had been branded with the legislator’s image, name and political slogans.
Wambui argued that the practice turned public infrastructure into political advertising platforms, potentially misleading residents about who was responsible for financing and implementing development projects.
The petition also raised questions about projects allegedly bearing the MP’s branding despite having been initiated before he took office.
Court Draws Line Between Branding and Personal Responsibility
Although the court declared personal branding of publicly funded projects a violation of constitutional principles, it found that the petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated that Ngogoyo personally authorised the disputed signage.
“I am not satisfied that the petitioner has discharged the burden of proof that he, whether by himself or through his agents or servants, allowed the signage to be put on taxpayer-funded projects,” the court stated.
The finding is significant because it separates the court’s determination on the constitutional implications of personal branding from the question of whether the MP was responsible for the specific signs cited in the case.
Why Public Project Branding Became a Legal Issue
The dispute raises broader questions about accountability in the use of public resources and the role of elected leaders in communicating development achievements.
In June 2025, reports on the case indicated that Wambui had accused Ngogoyo of placing his image, name and political slogans on taxpayer-funded infrastructure, including projects allegedly implemented through public agencies and constituency development structures. At that stage, the court had not issued interim orders.
The petitioner argued that branding such projects with an individual politician’s identity could blur the distinction between public institutions and elected representatives, giving the impression that developments funded by taxpayers were personal achievements.
The latest ruling establishes a constitutional boundary against personal branding of publicly financed projects while maintaining the requirement that allegations against a particular individual must be supported by evidence.
The court’s order directing the removal of personal name branding in Kajiado North places the issue beyond a debate over political publicity and into the enforcement of constitutional principles on public resources and governance.
The decision also brings renewed attention to the responsibility of public officials to ensure that government-funded projects are presented as public investments rather than personal property or political advertising.
