Epra boss date with the court over fuel taxes

Daniel Kiptoo, the director-general of the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority, has been called to testify about why he defied a court order that barred the implementation of the Finance Act 2023 and raised petrol prices.
As they heard petitions contesting the Act’s provisions on Monday, three High Court judges ordered Mr. Kiptoo to appear before them on September 13 as requested by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah.
Mr. Omtatah has charged the CEO of Epra with violating the court’s decision by altering fuel prices in accordance with the Finance Act of 2023.
The summons was issued by Justices David Majanja, Christine Meoli, and Lawrence Mugambi notwithstanding their refusal to halt the implementation of the housing levy and retroactively date deductions to July 1, as requested by the Law Society of Kenya and other lobbying organizations.
The judges announced, “Daniel Kiptoo Bargoria is hereby summoned to appear in court.”
The High Court, according to Mr. Omtatah, issued an injunction on June 30 suspending the Finance Act of 2023, but Epra changed the prices by increasing the value-added tax levied on the good from 8.0% to 16%.
The senator claimed that after being issued with the court judgment, Epra increased the price of petroleum products in contempt of the conservatory injunction.
“It is profoundly important that Mr. Daniel Kiptoo Bargoria is punished for contempt in accordance with the law to cure this absurdity and to avoid compromising the public interest in the rule of law and the authority of this honourable court,” Mr. Omtatah argued.
Regarding the housing fee, the LSK claimed through its president Eric Theuri that Treasury Cabinet Secretary Njuguna Ndung’u had illegally chosen the Kenya Revenue Authority as the agent for collection because there are no enabling laws granting the taxman such authority.
Mr. Theuri added that the KRA informed employers and workers of the intention to retroactively apply the levy to July 1 in a notice that was sent to both groups.
“The Act’s implementation was halted by a court injunction between July 1 and July 20. Therefore, as proposed in the notification, the housing fund cannot be established retroactively,”  he said, adding that the levy can only be put into effect when the Court of Appeal withdrew the conservatory order.
According to Mr. Theuri, the provision of Section 84 of the Finance Act will ultimately burden taxpayers by forcing them to bear an unfair tax burden that is against the Constitution.
However, the judges decided against blocking the housing levy’s implementation, stating that the Court of Appeal took all factors into account before lifting the suspension.
Although the Court of Appeal stated that the High Court would consider suspending Act provisions whose implementation would have an irreversible effect and where funds cannot be refunded, the court said in a ruling read by Justice Majanja that it was not persuaded to use this jurisdiction at this time because all of these issues were on the table when it made its decision.
The housing levy, according to the LSK, is discriminatory because it only requires people in formal work to pay into the program; meanwhile, people in informal employment are the group that the program is intended to help.
Furthermore, the LSK claimed that because the qualifying requirements and management of the tax are unclear, neither the beneficiaries nor the Kenyans’ government body that would manage the money can be identified.
“Section 84 simply requires that the housing levy be remitted by both employers and employees, but no organization has been assigned the responsibility of administering this levy. Nothing would have been simpler than for the legislation to specifically declare that the aforementioned fee would be administered by a particular government body,” according to Mr. Theuri.
Through his attorney Cecil Miller, Senate Speaker Amason Kingi stated that the Finance Act received adequate public input and did not, as claimed, impact the duties and authority of county governments.
In any case, Mr. Miller stated in a court document answer that “there was a concurrence between the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the National Assembly confirming that the Finance Bill, 2023 did not have provisions affecting the functions and powers of county governments.”
The court simultaneously merged all of the petitions and gave parties instructions on how to get ready for hearings on September 13 and 14.