Wetang'ula, Parliament move to apex court over Housing Levy
Speaker of the National Assembly Moses Wetang'ula at County Hall, Nairobi on October 18, 2022.
What you need to know:
- Mr Wetang’ula says he was dissatisfied with the decision of three judges of the Court of Appeal
- The government and National Assembly moved to the appellate court seeking to suspend the decision
National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula has moved to the Supreme Court over the Housing Levy.
Dissatisfied with the decision of three judges
In a notice filed on Tuesday, Mr Wetang’ula and the National Assembly says he was dissatisfied with the decision of three judges of the Court of Appeal, declining to allow the government to continue collecting the levy.
In a ruling last week, Court of Appeal judges Lydia Achode, John Mativo and Mwaniki Gachoka ruled that public interest tilted in favour of not suspending the High Court decision, which found the housing Levy illegal.
Introduced without a legal framework
The High Court ruled the levy was introduced without a legal framework and it was discriminatory for targeting a section of Kenyans.
The government and National Assembly moved to the appellate court, seeking to suspend the decision, pending its appeal but the application was declined. “In our view, public interest lies in awaiting the determination of the appeal,” the Appellate court judges said.
“Take notice that the National Assembly and the Speaker of the National Assembly, the 1st and 2nd applicants in Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No.E577 of 2023, being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, delivered at Nairobi 26th January 2024, intend to appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya against the whole of the said ruling,” the notice to the apex court read.
While declining to allow the government to continue collecting the levy, pending the determination of the appeal, the judges said should the bench hearing the appeal upheld the decision nullifying the levy, then all actions that will have been undertaken under the challenged sections of the law during the “intervening period will be legally frail”.
“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 said.
