Ruto dealt a huge blow on House Levy in the latest Court Ruling.
The Court of Appeal has today rejected the state’s application to stay the Finance Act ruling.
This means that there will be no more imposition of the levy on citizens until the appeal is conclusively heard
In a statement seen by k47 digital news team, the Court of Appeal stated “…we direct that the appeals be heard expeditiously so that the issues raised in the appeals can be resolved with finality”
“…exercise would offend both the separation of powers principle, in terms of which lawmaking powers are reserved for the Legislature, and the principle of constitutional supremacy, which renders law that is inconsistent with the
Constitution invalid. “
As decided cases suggest, the purpose of the suspension, according to the Court is to enable the legislature to respond directly to a holding of invalidity.
Although an unconstitutional law is maintained in force for a short time, the Constitution is still respected, because if no new law is enacted by the time the period of suspension ends, the declaration of invalidity takes effect.
It is evident that the operation of the invalidity is suspended so as to allow parliament to cure the defect. This was compared to South African Constitutional Court in Minister for Transport & Another vs Anele Mvumvu & Others (2-12} ZACC 20 and the Canadian Supreme Court Schachter vs. Canada(supra).
As authorities suggest, the Court says, the jurisdiction to suspend declarations of invalidity is narrow and is only exercised in limited cases.
The question narrowed to whether the applicants have established a case for the suspension sought in public interest.
The presumption of constitutional validity in respect of the impugned sections was extinguished the moment the trial Court issued the declaration.
The question that begs an answer is whether in the circumstances of the it would be in public interest to grant a stay whose effect is to allow a statute that has been found to be constitutionally infirm to continue being in the law books pending the hearing of an appeal.
“We do not think so. This is because should the Court hearing the appeal affirm the constitutional invalidity of the impugned laws, then all actions that will have been undertaken under the impugned sections of the law during the intervening period will be legally frail.”
The trial Court held that the Housing Levy was introduced without a legal framework.
It also held that the levy was targeting a section of Kenyans.
“our view, public interest lies in awaiting the determination of the appeal. This is because if the stay sought is granted at this stage, should the appellate Court affirm the impugned decision, then some far-reaching decisions that will have been undertaken pursuant to the impugned laws may not be reversible.” A court statement read.
“Public interest in our view tilts favour of not granting the stay or the suspension sought.”
Public interest tilts in favour awaiting the determination of the issues raised in the intended appeals.
In conclusion, the Court found and held that none of the 4 consolidated applications satisfies both limps.
“Accordingly, Civil applications Nos. E577 of 2023, E581 of 2023, E585 of 2023 and E596 of 2023 are hereby dismissed.
“We make no orders as to Costs. However, we direct that the appeals be heard expeditiously so that the issues raised in the appeals can be resolved with finality.”
