Taxpayer's pain, win for Ruto as court unfreezes the Finance Act

The three judges termed the Finance Act a unique law and they faulted High Court judge Mugure Thande for issuing a blanket freeze.

The bench headed by Justice Warsame said the High Court ought to have considered that the government can refund the money to taxpayers if the courts find that they had overpaid when making subsequent tax payments.

Although there is a separate case challenging the Appropriation Act, 2023, before the High Court, the three judges observed that the Act that allows the government to spend had not been questioned.

They also said that Justice Thande failed to consider the public interest in the case.

"In conclusion, we are persuaded that the applicants have satisfied the twin principles for the grant of the orders sought, and that, public interest tilts in favour of setting aside the conservatory orders by the trial judge," the Court of Appeal ruled.

A glance at the cases indicates that the major dispute is on the process of enacting the bill into law and the net effect of the proposals on Kenyans.

Senator Okiya's case is aggrieved that the National Assembly never sought concurrence from the Senate while preparing the Bill.

He argues in his case that Senate Speaker Amason Kingi on June 15 protested to his National Assembly counterpart Moses Wetang'ula for failing to submit the Finance Bill to the upper house for consideration and debate.

According to Okiya, the now Finance law touches on county government and was a money bill, therefore, it required consensus from Senators before it was debated and passed by the lower house.

Okiya targets the entire document.

"The entire Finance Bill, 2023 collapsed, and so did the resultant Finance Act, 2023, for having not been subjected to the concurrence of the two Speakers of Parliament under Article 110(3) of the Constitution" he argued in his case filed alongside Eliud Matindi, Michael Kojo, Benson Otieno, Blair Angima, Victor Okuna and Florence Kanyua.

On the other hand, Agoro takes a different bout against the Bill.

His argument is that the law has in effect touched other laws that needed amendment by both houses. He has cited the housing tax and increase of fuel levy from eight to 16 per cent as some of the draconian measures introduced in the new law without public participation.

Agoro asserts that the net effect is that a taxpayer will be left poorer than before.