Talanta Stadium is the planned venue for the Bayern Munich–Ajax friendly.
Six Kenyans want the High Court to compel disclosure of sponsorship contracts and block public commitments to the planned Talanta Stadium friendly.
Six Kenyans have filed a Bayern-Ajax sponsorship petition seeking disclosure of financial arrangements for the planned Nairobi friendly. They also want the High Court to block government commitments of public money and resources pending legal compliance.
The January 5, 2027 fixture would form part of the official opening of Raila Odinga International Stadium, popularly known as Talanta Stadium.
President William Ruto announced the planned match, saying corporate partnerships and a self-sustaining commercial model would support it. However, the petitioners argue that private-financing assurances cannot replace disclosure of contracts and potential government obligations.
Bayern-Ajax sponsorship petition seeks contracts
Erick Sayialel Mankuyu leads the petition alongside Julius Kimani Kamau, Dickson Kimathi Muli and Nicholas Ochieng Oyoo. Mulinge Muteti and Collins Otieno complete the group.
They have sued the Attorney General, the Sports and National Treasury cabinet secretaries, and Sports Kenya. The petition also names the Law Society of Kenya and Katiba Institute as interested parties.
The six want orders compelling the respondents to disclose complete sponsorship agreements and club contracts within seven days. In addition, they seek sponsors’ identities and each sponsor’s exact financial contributions or obligations.
The requested budgets cover appearance fees, travel, accommodation, security, insurance and other logistical expenses. They also want disclosure of any public funding, government guarantees, subsidies or deployment of public personnel.
Meanwhile, the petition seeks preservation of financial documents, procurement records, sponsorship agreements and official correspondence. The petitioners further request an independent audit of public expenditure and financial commitments connected to the fixture.
Public resources and constitutional safeguards
The requested conservatory orders would prevent the respondents from authorising or spending public money without demonstrating constitutional and public finance compliance. They would also restrict public resources, including security personnel, transport and stadium facilities, pending disclosure and legal compliance.
The petitioners argue that public institutions’ involvement creates an obligation to account for any direct or indirect taxpayer exposure. Therefore, they want disclosure even if corporate sponsors finance the event.
Their case cites Article 35 of the Constitution, which protects access to information held by the State. It also invokes Article 201’s requirements for openness, accountability and prudent management of public money.
Other grounds include constitutional safeguards on public funds and provisions allowing courts to enforce fundamental rights. The petitioners also rely on the Public Finance Management Act and the Access to Information Act.
Beyond the fixture, the petition references parliamentary scrutiny of stadium construction costs. It cites a reported increase from KSh35 billion to KSh45.85 billion.
The petitioners also point to Auditor-General concerns over contingent liabilities and infrastructure asset-backed security arrangements. They argue that this financing history makes transparency around the stadium’s opening event especially important.
