This study explored the practice of Capacity Development (CD) of the Ministry of Educationrn(MOE) through bilateral partnership projects. Grounded on social constructivist and interpretivist rnstance, the study adopted a comparative case study design. The Department For International rnDevelopment /DFID/ and the United States Agency for International Development/USAID/rnbilateral projects were selected as a case. Semi- structured interview and documents analysis were rnemployed to gather the in-depth qualitative data necessary to explore and compare the practice of rnCD of the MOE through the bilateral partnership projects. A total of 24 study participants who rnare staff of the projects, and the MOE were selected as a primary source of data using purposive rnsampling. Relevant policy and strategic documents, project agreements and reports were rnanalyzed. The research sought to answer four key questions, and the analysis of data and rndiscussion of the findings were guided by Complex Adaptive System Theory (CAS) and the power rnrelation theory. The finding emanated from this study reveals poor conceptualization of CD in rnboth cases, and this resulted in considering CD as building or injecting capacity through the rnprojects, providing support by direct implementation of project activities, technical assistance, rnadapting some intervention tested elsewhere, shots of training and developing strategic documents rnand manuals by consultants. There is inclination to some aspects of capacity of the MOE and rnfailure to acknowledge the different components as equally important, and as involving complex rninteraction. The study discloses the poor policy and strategic guidance of DFID and USAID on rnCD of the MOE of local partners, and this has contributed to the poor prioritization, lack of clarity rnof objectives, approach, expected outcomes of CD, and fragmented integration and rnimplementation in the respective bilateral projects. The finding uncovers that the ways of rnmanaging the two bilateral projects, which is mainly the decision of the donors, has very little rncontribution to CD of the MOE and in some cases has adverse effect. The deficient responsibilities rnof the MOE on key project activities which is mainly the result of involvement of intermediary rnproject implementing organizations and the focus of the bilateral donor on producing results than rndeveloping local capacity, the poor decision-making power of the MOE on prioritization of CD rnand resource has led to low local ownership. The operation of a separate project office for project rnmanagement, poor utilization of existing structure, working system and staff of the MOE, and more rndependence on using technical assistance through project staff, and consultants, has impacted the rnMOE negatively from developing its capacity. The CD process through the steps from engaging rnthe local partners, capacity need identification, developing a strategy or plan, implementation and rnmonitoring and evaluation is generally poor in the two bilateral projects, with some attempt in the rncase of DFID. The investigation has several implications for policy and practice. Effective CD rnprocess through development partnership needs to be conceptualized as locally driven and owned, rnholistic, involving the interplay of the different components that are internal and external to thernsystem, a complex and non-linear interaction. Having a comprehensive policy or strategic guide rnthat shows CD of the local partner as the prior focus of the technical cooperation, an approach of rnproject management and CD which enhances local ownership, strengthens and utilizes the internal rncapacity; a CD that is properly planned and implemented in a way the local partners leads the rnprocess from initiation to monitoring and evaluation; considering the dynamics of development rnpartnership and the underlined interests of different actors, as well as the effect of power rnasymmetry are the major implications of the study.