The Speaker of the National Assembly Moses Wetangula on Tuesday filed an appeal at the Supreme Court, challenging the recent ruling by the Court of Appeal which upheld the High Court decision temporarily halting the collection of the Housing Levy.
While filing the appeal, Wetangula expressed discontentment with the Appellate Court's ruling, demanding the Apex Court to overturn it.
"Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E577 of 2023 (the "Appellants"), being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal (Hon. L. Achode, Hon. J. Mativo & Hon. M. Gachoka (CIA), JJ.A) delivered at Nairobi 26th January 2024, intend to appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya against the whole of the said Ruling,” read part of the appeal notice.
The move comes five days after President Ruto vowed to appeal the court decisions that slapped injunctions on the collection of the Housing Levy and deployment of Kenyan police to Haiti.
Speaking in Igembe Central, Meru County on the same day the ruling was made, the Head of State maintained that the court should have given the government enough time to establish laws that would actualise the levy.
While emphasising the significance of the affordable housing project, the Head of State vowed to continue with the project despite the court order halting it.
"Do you want the housing programme to continue? Aren't you the ones who have a say here? Isn't your voice the voice of God? Now I have the command to continue with this programme," Ruto stated.
While delivering their ruling on January 26, the three-judge Appellate bench consisting of Justices Lydia Achode, John Mativo and Mwaniki Gachoka ordered the government to stop collecting the levy as initially ordered by the High Court, citing public interest.
In its ruling, the court argued that it would be unfair to deduct the money as it could not predict its final verdict. If found unconstitutional, the process of refunding the money would complicate the case.
Furthermore, the judges ordered the four consolidated appeals to be heard as soon as possible to allow issues raised in the appeals to be resolved.
"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," the Appellate Court stated.
"Public interest in our view tilts favour of in not granting the stay or the suspension sought. Public interest tilts in favour awaiting the determination of the issues raised in the intended appeals," the judges ruled."
