The Supreme Court of Kenya has rejected Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah’s petition challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision to lift orders barring the implementation of the Finance Act 2023.
Last month, the Court of Appeal lifted a High Court injunction that had halted the implementation of the Finance Act. Treasury had argued that the country could lose over half a billion in daily revenue if the Act was not enforced.
However, a separate case related to this matter is still pending in the High Court.
In part, the judgment stated, “The four sets of written submissions filed out of time by the applicants on 15th August 2023 on the Court’s online platform be and are hereby struck out.”
Additional revenue from finance act
President William Ruto’s administration aims to generate an additional Ksh211 billion from the new taxes introduced in the Act. They have argued that suspending the implementation of these taxes would disrupt government operations.
The Supreme Court also decided, “The responses and/or submissions filed out of time by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th respondents be and are hereby struck out. The applicants’ Notice of Motion dated 5th August, 2023 be and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.”
The Judges in their ruling emphasized that suspending the Act, as noted by the Court of Appeal, would have a detrimental impact on government operations.
Consideration of public interest
Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified that Omtatah had misunderstood a prior ruling in a separate case that formed the basis of their argument.
“It is important to clarify that this Court in the said decision did not pronounce itself on any exceptional or unique circumstances that would warrant it to entertain an appeal emanating from Rule 5(2)(b) as alluded by the applicants,” the judges stated.
“The appeal also did not arise from an order made under Rule 5(2)(b), and we reiterated the settled position that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal arising from the exercise of the Court of Appeal’s discretion under the said Rule,” the judges further added.
The Judges also emphasized their consideration of the public interest in this matter, given its widespread implications that affect many people, most of whom are not directly involved in the case.
“The appeal also did not arise from an order made under Rule 5(2)(b), and we reiterated the settled position that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal arising from the exercise of the Court of Appeal’s discretion under the said Rule,” the judges reiterated.
