Supreme Court has dismissed Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah's petition challenging the Court of Appeal’s ruling that lifted orders barring the implementation of the Finance Act 2023.
The Court of Appeal last month lifted a High Court order barring the implementation of the Finance Act after the Treasury argued that the country stands to lose more than half a billion in revenues daily.
The Court's decision now means that the Treasury will continue collecting the new taxes including adjusted Valle Added Taxes and Housing Levy as contained in the Finance Act 2023 pending a determination of a separate case pending at the High Court.
"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," the judgment read in part.
President William Ruto's administration plans to raise an additional Ksh211 billion from new taxes introduced in the Act and has been arguing that the suspension of the implementation of the new taxes will bring government operations to a halt.
"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 Supreme Court ruled.
In their ruling, the Judges argued that suspension of the Act, just as it was observed by the Court of Appeal would have affected government operations.
Supreme Court also noted that Omtatah misapprehended an earlier ruling on a separate case that their case was based on.
"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 ruled.
"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 also noted that they were guided by the principle of public interest, especially due to the fact that the matter at hand involves many people, most of whom are not parties to 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 exercise of the Court of Appeal’s discretion under the said Rule," the court ruled.
