Talanta Stadium: Government Finally Reveals Why Project Cost Jumped by Sh10.85 Billion

The price tag for the Talanta Sports City project has surged by a staggering Sh10.85 billion, with the government attributing the increase to taxes and other charges that were not included in the initial estimate.

The development, which includes the 60,000-seater Talanta Stadium, now officially named the Raila Odinga Stadium, was initially approved by the National Treasury at Sh35 billion.

Audit reports released in February 2026 revealed that the project's cost had risen to Sh45.85 billion, prompting Auditor-General Nancy Gathungu to raise concerns about the unexplained variation and the procurement process.

Gathungu questioned the award of the tender to Linzi Finco LLP, stating that the process contravened the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and that her office had not been consulted for clearance.

The government, however, has rejected suggestions that the increase resulted from inflated construction costs, arguing that taxes and additional charges were missing from the original concept.

Sports Principal Secretary Elijah Mwangi said the initial Sh35 billion figure was based on a concept developed by the University of Nairobi Enterprise Services (UNES) and did not account for several costs that would arise once construction began.

“The designs for this Raila Odinga Stadium were done by UNES, the University of Nairobi Enterprise Services. It was just a concept, and the initial concept they designed was costing around that figure of Sh35 billion,” Sports Principal Secretary Elijah Mwangi explained in an interview on Sporty Monday.

He said the eventual decision to engage a contractor introduced additional obligations, including taxes and import-related expenses.

“But then, for you to do the actual construction, there were other factors that were not considered, mostly the taxes," he continued.

"A contractor will have to pay taxes, the VAT, the withholding tax, and of course, when you are importing, you'll have to pay freight and clearance charges. If you look at that Sh10.85 billion difference, it’s a matter of the taxes that had not been incorporated in the estimates.”

Mwangi maintained that the original Sh35 billion estimate represented the minimum construction cost based on a consultant's design rather than the final cost of engaging a contractor.

“When you ask a consultant to design a project for you, they will give you the minimal cost,” he explained. “You may decide to construct the project yourself. When you construct it yourself, you may likely not have to pay taxes... But if you contract, you will have to pay taxes to the contractor.”

He added that once the government opted to contract the construction work, the associated tax obligations had to be incorporated into the project's cost.

“From the Sh35 billion, we had to consider the taxes because it was not attached as a cost, and it’s not a tax-exempt venture. That’s how the difference came about.”

The project is now facing renewed scrutiny over the possibility of additional interest charges arising from delayed payments to the contractor.

Auditor-General Nancy Gathungu warned that late payments to Linzi Finco LLP could attract interest at three percentage points above the Central Bank of Kenya's average lending rate of 14.3 percent.

That could push the applicable interest rate to approximately 17 percent, potentially adding another significant financial burden to the project's already rising cost.