How Muthaiga Estate of 1920s fought not to become another Eastleigh
Central Bank of Kenya Governor’s official residence in Muthaiga.
By John Kamau
What you need to know:
- Muthaiga was never part of Nairobi – and was operated outside the Nairobi township bylaws
- For over 16 years, and as late as 1929, Muthaiga operated with its administration and as a separate district outside Nairobi.
- Westlands and Eastleigh is that the residents did not negotiate on the kind of suburb that they wanted when Nairobi started to push its boundaries.
After my article last week, a reader asked me how the age-old Muthaiga estate managed to retain its decent look while others collapsed. The story of Muthaiga is one of the most interesting pieces of Nairobi history.
As a start, Muthaiga was never part of Nairobi – and was operated outside the Nairobi township bylaws as part of Morrison Estate. The Muthaiga Township Committee enforced the Muthaiga bylaws.
For over 16 years, and as late as 1929, Muthaiga operated with its administration and as a separate district outside Nairobi. It was not comparable to its contemporaries — Westlands and Eastleigh, which had emerged during the same period as small townships outside Nairobi.
The problem with Westlands and Eastleigh is that the residents did not negotiate on the kind of suburb that they wanted when Nairobi started to push its boundaries beyond the Mathare River.
Muthaiga wanted to avoid becoming another Eastleigh. It fought back.
The debate was all about the kind of buildings that would emerge in a particular area and the planning discipline. Muthaiga Township was one of many districts that had emerged outside the Nairobi postal area. The others were Parklands, Kilimani, Westlands, the Hill, and Eastleigh.
The Muthaiga debate is important for all urban planners because it informs policy and urban discipline. It was in 1929 that Nairobi’s then deputy Mayor, E.M. Ley, called for applying Nairobi bylaws to other independent districts. What has been forgotten was that this was a negotiated inclusion between the separate townships and Nairobi.
The reason Muthaiga has retained its uniqueness is because it was planned — and the residents knew what they wanted. They did not want to build another Eastleigh.
Muthaiga was the first to protest to the Nairobi Town Clerk and there is that famous letter written by James Cleland, the Manager of Morrison Estates (East Africa) Limited. It argued that the idea of applying the Nairobi township bylaws on Muthaiga “would be a distinct breach of the undertaking given by both the Commissioner of Local Government and His Worship the Mayor, which was to the effect that this area would retain the present Muthaiga Township bylaws” and which should be implemented – not by Nairobi Township – but by the Muthaiga Township Committee.
That letter essentially stated that Muthaiga wanted to have its own set of discipline, the same way gated communities are run today.
When the question of the absorption of Muthaiga was floated first, the residents, nay plot owners, were faced with a position that caused considerable concern for them. “The estate had been built up on completely different lines from other parts of town. The buildings were above the average. A great deal of development had been carried out all as part of one plan,” the East African Standard noted in a 1929 article on Muthaiga.
Private security personnel outside the Muthaiga home of former first lady Ngina Kenyatta.
There was fear from the start of what would happen if the self-imposed urban discipline within Muthaiga was replaced with “looser Conditions” which were being applied elsewhere in Eastleigh and Westlands.
“If the bylaws applicable to the whole of Nairobi were applied to Muthaiga,” one Muthaiga resident argued, “ the whole position which had been created would be destroyed, and the plan which had been in operation for 16 years would be defeated.”
It was after this that it was determined that negotiations should be carried out for the protection of Muthaiga. That is how a committee was formed and brought together the Commissioner of Local Government and, representatives of Muthaiga Township and representatives of the Town council. The decisions of that committee were binding.
One suggestion was that Nairobi township adopt the Muthaiga Township bylaws, but that the Muthaiga Township Committee should have the ultimate powers to enforce them within its jurisdiction. But Nairobi’s deputy mayor was still hesitant, fearing that the other smaller townships might adopt the Muthaiga “attitude.”
In one of the minutes of that meeting. Councilor Udall is quoted saying that “it would be impossible for Muthaiga to be left in the air without any bylaws.” He said that however much sympathy some people had with Muthaiga he did “not see how it was possible to come to an arrangement as was being suggested.”
“The position of the council would be an impossible one if the districts outside the Nairobi postal area adopted the same attitude.”
As Councillor Henderson told the committee that arrived at that decision, “There was no doubt that Muthaiga had proved itself as the most sanitary and the most artistic of all Nairobi suburbs.” He agreed that all the suburbs would have to join the greater Nairobi scheme in years to come, but he did not think that the proposals would be implemented all at once.
This expansion of Nairobi was always open to discussion, but the Muthaiga case was complex – and was unlike Eastleigh, known for its overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. Eastleigh had its own set of bylaws, but the Muthaiga bylaws were more stringent than those in Nairobi. One of the fears of Muthaiga residents was what would happen if Muthaiga bylaws were set aside and the area was run using the Nairobi township bylaws. “If the Nairobi bylaws were applied to Muthaiga, there was nothing to stop the erction of eating houses and hotels in that area,” argued Councillor Henerson. He felt municipal bylaws could be introduced if Muthaiga wished to build flats and eateries.
One of the early promises was that it would be subject to safeguards to commitments which had been made. One of the early arguments was that it was important for such small townships to continue operating their own bylaws.
The other problem was that some of the emerging areas outside the Nairobi township did not operate with any bylaws. During that Muthaiga debate meeting, it was suggested that they should apply the Eastleigh bylaws or the Municipal bylaws.
But Eastleigh did also not go without a small fight. Abdul Aziz led the powerful Eastleigh Association. He wrote to the Town Clerk: “I may point out that the plot owners are still against the amalgamation of Eastleigh Township with the Nairobi Municipality but even then the government have hurried to apply the Ordinance without consultation with the areas proposed to be amalgamated…my association is of the opinion that the present bylaws should not be enforced in Eastleigh until necessary facilities are afforded such as a suitable road of access, water supply, drains and electric light.
Taxation should not be levied until the above facilities are afforded.”
That shows that people would make their demands on the kind of town they wanted and when they gave in – as was the case of Eastleigh, then everything collapsed. Interestingly, Muthaiga managed to argue its case and negotiate on the kind of planned estate it wanted. That did not happen in Eastleigh. Today, when you look at the two residential areas, you can see the difference. I am sorry Eastleigh!
Last word: Do you know that Homabay town was the first town in Kenya to have a town plan in place before anything was built? It is a shame that this plan was later abandoned. It was an experiment that would have worked for many other towns that today have developed in a haphazard manner.
