Freeze order extended on Finance Act

As a result of the arguments made by all parties who appeared before Justice Mugure Thande, she determined on Monday that the petitioners had the upper hand because the CS had failed to persuade the court that the order should be suspended.
The CS had contended, through Attorney General Justin Muturi, that the conservatory decision poses a threat to impede government operations as several other financial measures remain suspended.
The judge stated, “Upon evaluation of the submissions, I have no difficulty finding that the petitioners have established a case with a probability of success,” adding that the general public will be prejudiced if the suspension is lifted and the petitioners ultimately succeed.
After the initial suspension, the uncertainty about what will happen to the taxes that the government has been collecting illegally since July 1 has persisted.
Okiya Omtatah, a senator from Busia, Eliud Matindi, Michael Otieno, and four other people signed the petition.
“The Act has been suspended for 12 days, and the government has not shut down. The Finance Act, 2022, has procedures in place to ensure its continuation. Except for the additional taxes and levies, people pay import duties and income tax, according to senior attorney Otiende Amollo for Mr. Otieno.
Brief suspension
In order to move to the Court of Appeal for a stay, Mr. Muturi requested a temporary suspension of the verdict for a period of seven to fourteen days immediately following the Monday decision.
But the judge turned down the argument.
Justice Thande also granted a request for the case to be recognized as raising important constitutional questions and forwarded the file to Chief Justice Martha Koome for the purpose of assembling a bench to hear and decide the matter.
The petitioners are asking for the Finance Act to be ruled illegal on the grounds that the Speakers of the National Assembly and the Senate do not agree on subjects pertaining to counties.
Furthermore, they contend that proper procedure was not followed in the tabling of the Finance Bill, which was later signed into law by President William Ruto.
The petitioners contend that the Constitution restricts the national government’s powers in relation to housing to the creation of a housing policy and nothing else. This is in reference to the housing levy, for which both the employer and employee are required to pay 1.5% each.