The collapse of a multi-storey building in Eastleigh, Nairobi, on 23 October 2026, has renewed serious questions about construction safety, regulatory oversight and accountability in Kenya's property industry.
The incident occurred in a busy commercial neighbourhood, where the consequences of structural failure extend beyond the construction site. Workers, traders, customers, neighbouring businesses and members of the public can all be exposed to danger when construction safeguards fail.
For Kenya's real estate industry, the question is not simply what caused this particular building to collapse. It is also whether the systems intended to prevent such incidents are working as they should. We believe this tragedy warrants a rigorous, evidence-based examination of responsibility, enforcement and the practical measures needed to prevent future loss of life.
What do we know about the Eastleigh collapse?
The National Construction Authority (NCA) has identified the parties recorded for the proposed development along 9th Street in Eastleigh. Its records name 9th Street Plaza Limited as the developer, Stromax Holdings E.A Limited as the contractor, Emmanuel Mwangi Maina as the architect and Joseph Muturi Mugu as the structural engineer.
The NCA said the project was registered on 30 July 2025. The Engineers Board of Kenya has also announced an investigation into the circumstances of the collapse and the role of engineers involved in the project. Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja raised questions about the building's approval and occupation status. However, public reporting has presented differing accounts of its approval history, which must be reconciled against the actual county records and other project documentation.
As of the reporting reviewed for this article, the technical cause of the collapse and the allocation of legal responsibility had not been conclusively established. These distinctions matter. Identifying the parties associated with a project is not the same as proving that any of them caused its failure. Similarly, a reported regulatory breach may be significant without necessarily establishing the physical mechanism that caused the structure to collapse. The investigation must establish both.
1. Where does responsibility lie?
A building project involves several parties whose responsibilities differ but may intersect. A thorough investigation should examine each part of the construction process.
The Developer or building owner
The developer initiates and finances the project and is responsible for ensuring that the development proceeds within the applicable legal and regulatory framework. Investigators should establish who controlled the project, who authorised construction decisions, whether the required approvals were obtained, whether the approved design was followed and whether the premises were used in accordance with applicable requirements. A critical question is whether commercial considerations or pressure to complete the development compromised compliance or safety.
The Contractor
The contractor is responsible for carrying out the construction work within the applicable contractual, technical and regulatory requirements. The investigation should compare the actual structure with the approved drawings and specifications. Relevant areas include foundation works, reinforcement, concrete quality, construction sequencing, workmanship, temporary supports and the adequacy of site supervision. Material testing and forensic examination may help establish whether construction defects or deviations contributed to the collapse.
Architects and Engineers
The responsibilities of architects and engineers depend on their appointments, statutory duties and the work they actually undertook. Investigators should establish who prepared and reviewed the relevant designs, who was responsible for supervision, what approvals and certifications were issued, and whether the structure was built in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. Professional involvement must be established through evidence. Being named in project records does not, by itself, prove negligence or establish the scope of an individual's responsibility.
Nairobi City County and Construction Regulators
The County's development-control and building-safety functions and the NCA's construction-sector regulatory functions must be examined according to their respective legal mandates. The investigation should establish which approvals were issued, what inspections took place, whether any violations were identified, whether complaints or warnings were received, and what action followed. The question is not simply whether an institution had regulatory powers. It is whether the relevant controls were applied effectively to this project.
The wider construction system
Finally, the inquiry should examine whether weaknesses in inspection, enforcement, professional oversight or information-sharing allowed risks to go undetected or unresolved. Where systemic failures are identified, addressing them is as important as determining individual liability.
2. Approval on paper is not the same as safety on the ground
One of the most important lessons from this incident is the need to distinguish between the different stages of development approval and construction compliance. A project may require planning and development approval, approved architectural and structural designs, compliance with construction requirements, inspections during the works and the appropriate authorisation before occupation. Each stage serves a distinct purpose.
A project registration record does not, by itself, establish that every required county approval was obtained. An approved design does not establish that the building was constructed in accordance with that design. Nor does the existence of approval documents prove that all outstanding conditions were satisfied. Reports that shops were operating within the Eastleigh building while construction continued and questions raised about its occupation status therefore warrant close scrutiny.
Investigators must establish who permitted or allowed the premises to be used, what approvals applied, whether the relevant conditions were met and whether the occupation issue was connected to the collapse or represented a separate compliance failure. The absence of an occupation certificate, if confirmed, would be a serious regulatory concern. However, it would not by itself explain the structural cause of the collapse. That requires a separate technical investigation.
3. The impact on Kenya's real estate industry
Investor confidence
Investors depend on reliable information about the safety, compliance and quality of developments. Incidents of this nature may make buyers more cautious, particularly when considering projects under construction. Developers who can demonstrate transparent approvals, competent professional teams and credible quality-assurance processes may become more distinguishable from those unable to provide such evidence. Confidence will depend not only on individual developers but also on whether the regulatory system can demonstrate that construction standards are consistently enforced.
The cost of housing and development
Compliant construction involves professional fees, quality materials, inspections, testing and time. These requirements can increase the immediate cost of development. However, cutting corners can create much greater losses through structural failure, injuries, fatalities, litigation, demolition, business interruption and damage to neighbouring properties. The objective should be to make compliance efficient and predictable not to weaken safety requirements in pursuit of cheaper construction.
Small businesses and livelihoods
In dense commercial areas such as Eastleigh, a building collapse can disrupt businesses far beyond the affected property. Traders may lose premises, stock and income. Workers may lose their livelihoods, while neighbouring businesses may face closures and reduced customer traffic. The full economic cost therefore includes more than damage to the building itself. It encompasses lost income, disrupted commercial activity, recovery expenses and the long-term consequences for affected households and businesses.
Professional accountability
The industry depends on the competence and integrity of contractors, architects, engineers, developers and regulators. Where misconduct or negligence is established, proportionate disciplinary and legal consequences are necessary. At the same time, enforcement must distinguish between proven wrongdoing and mere association with a failed project. Effective accountability protects the public and reinforces confidence in professionals who comply with their obligations.
4. How can Kenya prevent similar tragedies?
Preventing another collapse requires a system that identifies risks before they become disasters.
Strengthen risk-based inspections
Construction inspections should focus on critical stages of structural work and on projects presenting heightened safety risks. Inspection findings should be recorded, deficiencies addressed and follow-up action documented. A site inspection that identifies a serious defect but does not lead to effective corrective action cannot provide adequate protection.
Verify compliance throughout construction
Authorities should be able to establish whether a building on site corresponds with the approved plans, including its authorised height, structural configuration and intended use. Material substitutions, additional floors and structural alterations should undergo the required technical review and approval before implementation.
Improve independent technical assurance
Higher-risk or complex developments should be subject to appropriate independent structural review and quality-assurance procedures. Such reviews should complement, rather than replace, the responsibilities of the appointed design professionals, contractor and regulatory authorities.
Enforce occupation requirements
Buildings should not be occupied until the required completion checks and authorisations have been satisfied. Where unauthorised occupation is identified, enforcement must be timely and effective. Commercial use of a building should not be allowed to create an unacceptable risk to occupants or the public.
Make enforcement meaningful
Penalties must be sufficiently effective to deter non-compliance, with the response proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the breach. Where evidence establishes professional misconduct, regulators should pursue the applicable disciplinary process. Where there is evidence of criminal conduct, the appropriate investigative and prosecutorial authorities should act in accordance with the law.
Improve public access to information
Developers, property buyers, tenants and members of the public would benefit from accessible information about approvals, registered project participants, relevant compliance status and reporting channels. A transparent system makes it easier to verify claims and raise concerns before a problem becomes a crisis.
Learn from every major incident
Once investigations are complete, findings should identify the immediate cause, contributing factors and any regulatory or professional failures. Authorities should publish appropriate findings and track the implementation of corrective measures. Without this final step, an investigation may establish what happened without reducing the likelihood of recurrence. These are measures for strengthening construction safety generally. The Eastleigh investigation must establish which safeguards applied to the project, whether they were followed and where any failures occurred.
5. What should the Eastleigh investigation establish?
A credible inquiry should answer several specific questions:
- What approvals were issued for the development, and what were their conditions?
- Did the approved structural and architectural designs correspond with the building that was constructed?
- Were there unauthorised alterations, additional floors or deviations from the design?
- What do forensic examinations and material tests reveal about the structural failure?
- Were inspections carried out at the relevant stages, and what did they establish?
- Were warning signs or complaints reported before the collapse?
- What was the legal basis, if any, for the operation of businesses within the premises while construction continued?
- What were the respective responsibilities of the developer, contractor, professionals and relevant authorities?
- Did any failures of inspection, supervision or enforcement materially contribute to the incident?
- What measures will be taken to prevent recurrence?
The answers should be supported by documentary evidence, technical findings and a clear account of the decisions made throughout the project.
Our View
At Stable Merchants, we believe that a property market cannot be considered healthy simply because construction activity is high or new developments are being delivered rapidly. The safety of buildings, the integrity of the approval process and the accountability of those involved are equally important measures of a well-functioning property industry.
The Eastleigh tragedy should lead to a transparent investigation, evidence-based accountability and practical reforms wherever weaknesses are established. Those found responsible for breaches of the law or professional obligations should face the consequences prescribed by law. Equally, the industry must avoid premature accusations and allow the investigation to establish the facts.
Most importantly, the response must extend beyond the individuals and organisations associated with this particular project. Kenya needs construction controls that work in practice: competent professionals, quality construction, meaningful inspections, effective enforcement and strict adherence to occupation requirements.
The ultimate measure of success will not be the number of statements issued or investigations announced. It will be whether the lessons are implemented and whether the public is better protected. The objective is not merely to explain why a building collapsed. It is to prevent the next collapse.
Stable Merchants Limited
Driven by Value
