- The four intend to appeal to the Supreme Court against the whole decision.
- In the notice, the four said they were dissatisfied with the ruling of Court of Appeal given in Nairobi on July 28, 2023.
Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah and three other petitioners have issued a notice of appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling that lifted orders barring the implementation of the Finance Act 2023.
The appeal by Omtatah, Eliud Karanja Matindi, Benson Odiwuor Otieno and Brian Angima Oigoro will be filed at the Supreme Court.
In the notice, the four said they were dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal given in Nairobi on July 28, 2023.
They intend to appeal to the Supreme Court against the whole decision.
The Court of Appeal lifted an order issued last month suspending the implementation of the Finance Act 2023 after Treasury CS Njuguna Ndung'u argued that the government loses half-a billion shillings daily, following the freeze.
A bench of three judges of the appellate court lifted the suspension placed on June 30, pending the determination of an appeal filed by Ndung’u.
The CS moved to the appellate court through Attorney General Justin Muturi arguing that the government stands to lose approximately Sh211 billion in the current financial year.
Justices Mohammed Warsame, Kathurima M’Inoti and Hellen Omondi ruled that the Finance Act has a life span of 90 days beyond which the next budgetary cycle is set in motion.
“We have no doubt in our mind that the Finance Act and the Appropriation Act are interdependent. While the former provides for generation of the funds, the latter provides for the expenditure. There can be no expenditure where the mode of generation of the funds has not been provided for,” the judges said.
Petitioners contested the passage of twenty-two sections of the Act “which were not in the Bill but were introduced on the floor of the National Assembly.”
They further challenged adoption of another 40 provisions without the input of the Senate arguing the said tax proposals required an endorsement by the Senate.
The petitioners also challenged public participation in the law-making process as being inadequate.