Abala Wanga at Centre of KSh7.2 Billion Kisumu Disaster as City Pays Price for Unchallenged Spacebuster Case

BY KT Team Kisumu taxpayers are staring at a staggering KSh7.203 billion liability arising from a failed tuck-shop project after the High Court found the Kisumu City Board and County Government liable for frustrating a contract with Spacebuster Limited in proceedings where the defendants ultimately called no evidence and did not cross-examine the company's witness. The dispute traces back to a contract signed on December 2, 2020 , under which Spacebuster was to design, install and manage at least 6,000 tuck shops at designated locations in Kisumu for a period of 10 years. Under the commercial arrangement recorded by the High Court, each tuck shop was expected to generate KSh10,000 in monthly rent. The Kisumu City Board was to receive KSh500 from each unit while Spacebuster retained KSh9,500. SheriaHub Those numbers would eventually become extraordinarily expensive for the county. Justice M.S. Shariff awarded Spacebuster KSh363.33 million in direct expenditure and losses and another KSh6.84 billion in projected income , bringing the principal award to KSh7.20333 billion , before interest and legal costs. Kenya Law Kisumu Walked Away From the Trial Perhaps the most striking aspect of the case is how Kisumu City and the County Government handled their defence. Court records show that the defendants had filed a defence and counterclaim, themselves seeking KSh360 million for breach of contract and KSh10 billion for alleged loss of business. But when Spacebuster's case eventually came up for hearing, the defendants sought an adjournment because their intended witness, then Acting City Manager Michael Abala Wanga , was said to be outside the court's jurisdiction. The court declined the adjournment. The defendants subsequently sought Justice Shariff's recusal. That effort also failed. According to the court record, their advocates then opted not to participate in the proceedings , meaning Spacebuster's witness was not cross-examined and the defendants ultimately presented no evidence supporting their defence and counterclaim. SheriaHub Justice Shariff was particularly critical of that decision. In a December 2024 ruling, the judge said the defendants had effectively squandered their opportunity to present their defence and prosecute their counterclaim after choosing not to participate. SheriaHub The consequences were enormous. Spacebuster's evidence — including its financial calculations and serious accusations surrounding the collapse of the project — went into the evidential record without being challenged through cross-examination. The KSh10 Million Bribery Claim At the centre of the case was an explosive accusation against Wanga. Spacebuster managing director Babior Newton Ong'ende testified that after the company sought approval to install tuck shops in designated areas, he was directed to meet Wanga. According to his testimony, Wanga demanded KSh10 million before allowing Spacebuster to install tuck shops in a designated area , and the payment was allegedly expected each time approval was required for another designated site. That was Spacebuster's evidence, and because Kisumu's lawyers declined to cross-examine the witness or present contrary evidence at trial, the accusation was not rebutted in those proceedings. Kenya Law Justice Shariff ultimately made a strong finding, stating that the contract had been frustrated after Spacebuster declined to make the payment described by its witness. The judgment sharply criticised Wanga's conduct and concluded that his actions exposed the defendants — and ultimately taxpayers — to liability. Kenya Law Wanga, however, now disputes the bribery accusation. In a petition reported on October 2, 2026, he described it as malicious, defamatory and unsupported, while challenging how the case was handled and saying the city had lodged an appeal and intended to seek a stay of execution. thefocuspaper.co.ke That distinction matters: the bribery claim was accepted by the trial court in a civil case where the evidence went unchallenged; it should not be presented as a criminal conviction for bribery. How a Tuck-Shop Contract Became a KSh7.2 Billion Bill Spacebuster told the court it had already invested heavily in implementing the project. The company said it purchased 465 containers at KSh520,000 each . It also claimed storage expenses of KSh41.83 million, transportation costs of KSh7.84 million, fabrication expenses of KSh32.64 million, site planning and design costs, ground-clearance expenses, cabro works, logistics and losses resulting from vandalism and destruction. The court accepted direct expenditure and losses totalling KSh363.33 million . Kenya Law But that was only a fraction of the eventual judgment. The real financial bombshell came from the contract's compensation provisions. Clause 11.2 provided for compensation where material default or breach by the contracting authority caused losses to the service provider. Crucially, where an act or omission by the contracting authority precipitated termination, the provision contemplated payment of income the service provider would have earned during the remaining contract period. Kenya Law Spacebuster calculated its lost income using 6,000 tuck shops × KSh9,500 per month × 120 months . The result was KSh6.84 billion . Justice Shariff accepted that calculation. Added to the KSh363.33 million in direct expenditure and losses, the bill reached KSh7,203,330,000 , excluding interest and costs. Kenya Law County Says Containers Were in the Wrong Places There is another side to the dispute. The county's public explanation when the project was stopped was that some containers had been installed in problematic locations, including drainage areas and walkways. Contemporary accounts also raised questions about whether some locations were gazetted or otherwise properly approved. kenyainsights.com Wanga has maintained that the project was suspended because of what he describes as problems and misrepresentations surrounding the contract. His October 2026 petition also argues that Spacebuster had not demonstrated compliance with certain financial-capacity and approval requirements. thefocuspaper.co.ke The problem for Kisumu is that these arguments did not become competing trial evidence capable of being tested against Spacebuster's case because of the defendants' decision not to participate after losing their adjournment and recusal applications. That procedural decision now sits at the heart of a multibillion-shilling dispute. Kisumu Moves to Fight the Judgment The battle is not necessarily over. Wanga says the city has lodged an appeal and intends to seek a stay of execution . He has also petitioned Chief Justice Martha Koome and the Judicial Service Commission over the handling of the proceedings, according to reporting published on October 2. Those complaints are Wanga's claims and have not been established as findings against the judge. thefocuspaper.co.ke The appeal process could therefore determine whether the KSh7.203 billion judgment ultimately survives in its present form and whether Spacebuster can enforce the entire award. For Kisumu residents, however, the case raises a much larger public-interest question: how did a project involving 6,000 small tuck shops expose public institutions to a judgment exceeding KSh7 billion? The court record provides part of the answer. A contract carrying substantial compensation obligations was signed. The project collapsed months later. Spacebuster sued. Kisumu filed a defence and an enormous counterclaim but, when the critical trial arrived, its lawyers did not cross-examine Spacebuster's witness and the defendants presented no evidence of their own. The result was a judgment of KSh7.20333 billion plus interest and costs — a liability that Kisumu is now trying to overturn.