A case in which hawkers have sued the Nakuru County government is set to be heard today, after failing to kick off on Wednesday.
The case was postponed due to the absence of the presiding judge, Lady Justice Abigael Mshila, who was said to be out on official duty.
The parties in the case -- members of the Nakuru street traders and Hawkers Association and the county government -- will appear before high court duty judge Maureen Odero.
In the suit, the hawkers are challenging their eviction from the town centre.
Last week on Wednesday, the hawkers got a reprieve after the high court halted their imminent eviction.
Lady Justice Abigael Mshila directed the county government to put in writing a guarantee that no hawker will be evicted pending the hearing and determination of the matter.
The hawkers reprieve came as the deadline imposed on them and announced by Governor Kinuthia Mbugua expired on New Year's eve when the licenses they paid the county government for expired.
On Sunday, the county government ordered the demolition of hawkers' makeshift stalls.
Nakuru Town East MP David Gikaria led a group of traders in protests, accusing Governor Mbugua of disobeying a court order halting the evictions of the hawkers.
During the night vigil, the officers demolished the remaining stalls along Mosque, Pandit Nehru, Gusii and Club roads.
The town’s main street, Kenyatta Avenue, and the adjacent Kenyatta Lane were also cleared of all structures deemed illegal.
The governor had directed all hawkers operating on pavements and in front of shops especially at the town centre to quit by January 1.
In a no-nonsense speech made to commemorate Kenya's 51st Jamhuri Day, Governor Kinuthia said the affected hawkers will not be licensed from January 1 unless they relocated.
In the case filed by the association chairman Simon Nasieku, Ronald Nyamiaka and Rahab Mugure on behalf of the hawkers, the traders averred that they risked suffering discrimination and losing their main source of income if the eviction process went on without their inclusion.
They argued that they were against being arbitrarily moved from their current business locations without the county administration providing them with a suitable alternative as earlier agreed.