Sharp Daily
No Result
View All Result
Thursday, July 3, 2025
  • Home
  • News
    • Politics
  • Business
    • Banking
  • Investments
  • Technology
  • Startups
  • Real Estate
  • Features
  • Appointments
  • About Us
    • Meet The Team
Sharp Daily
  • Home
  • News
    • Politics
  • Business
    • Banking
  • Investments
  • Technology
  • Startups
  • Real Estate
  • Features
  • Appointments
  • About Us
    • Meet The Team
No Result
View All Result
Sharp Daily
No Result
View All Result
Home News

Supreme Court backs Finance Act 2023, strikes down key provisions

Brian Murimi by Brian Murimi
October 29, 2024
in News
Reading Time: 2 mins read

The Supreme Court has delivered a mixed verdict on the contentious Finance Act 2023, overturning a lower court’s decision that had declared the entire law unconstitutional while maintaining the invalidity of several specific provisions.

In its ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court determined that while most of the Act could stand, certain sections – including amendments to the Kenya Roads Act and the Unclaimed Financial Assets Act – were unconstitutional as they fell outside the scope of a money bill.

The court’s decision comes after months of legal battles over the legislation, which was enacted in June 2023 and introduced significant changes to Kenya’s tax regime. The case consolidated multiple appeals challenging the Act’s constitutionality, both in terms of its content and the legislative process that led to its enactment.

The Supreme Court dismissed claims that the Finance Bill required concurrent approval from both houses of Parliament, affirming that “the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Speaker of Senate concurred that the Finance Bill, 2023 does not concern County Government.”

RELATEDPOSTS

Why firms are shedding jobs despite survival

June 19, 2025

Opinion: Austerity wrong medicine for Kenya’s economy.

June 16, 2025

Significantly, the court addressed the controversial question of public participation in the legislative process. While it determined that Parliament is not required to undertake fresh public participation for amendments made after initial public consultations, it emphasized the importance of reasonable measures to consider public input.

“While there is no express obligation on Parliament to provide reasons for accepting and/or rejecting proposals/views made during a public participation exercise, as a matter of good practice, it must nonetheless put in place reasonable measures to ensure it considers the proposals, views, suggestions, and comments received during such an exercise,” the court stated.

The ruling identified 15 sections of the Act as containing “substantive amendments,” including Sections 18, 21, 32, 38, 44, and others. However, it determined that two provisions – Sections 23 and 79 – were merely “minor/technical amendments.”

On the controversial Affordable Housing Levy, which had sparked significant public debate, the court declared the question moot, effectively leaving previous legal determinations on this matter unchanged.

The Supreme Court also established clear guidelines for future constitutional challenges to legislation, outlining seven key considerations courts must weigh when determining whether to declare a statute unconstitutional. These include the presumption of constitutionality and the burden of proof lying with the party alleging inconsistency.

In its recommendations, the court called for significant reforms to the legislative process, stating that “Parliament [should] put in place a legislative framework through statute for public participation as anticipated under Article 118(1)(b) of the Constitution.”

The court also emphasized the need for greater transparency, recommending that “Parliament establish measures to ensure that all versions of a Bill, at every stage of the law-making process, are accessible to the public for their information and scrutiny.”

The ruling provided detailed criteria for courts to consider when suspending declarations of invalidity, including the potential for legal vacuums, administrative confusion, and the balance between immediate constitutional relief and disruption to government operations.

In its final orders, the court directed each party to bear their own costs, citing the public interest nature of the case. The cross-appeals by various respondents were dismissed.

Previous Post

KCC petitioners’ long wait for compensation hits new snags

Next Post

Cytonn slams Official Receiver for misleading creditors of CHYS/CPN, in liquidation

Brian Murimi

Brian Murimi

Brian Murimi is a journalist with major interests in covering tech, corporates, startups and business news. When he's not writing, you can find him gaming, watching football or sipping a nice cup of tea. Send tips via bireri@thesharpdaily.com

Related Posts

News

Private vs Public Pension Funds in Kenya

June 30, 2025
Investments

Investor shift to long term bonds drives oversubscription in CBK’s reopened auction

June 19, 2025
News

The real price of Israel – Iran Conflict for Kenya.

June 19, 2025
Economy

Resilient but strained: Kenyan firms speak out in May 2025 CEO survey.

June 19, 2025
News

Co-op Bank posts KES 6.9 billion profit in Q1’2025

May 16, 2025
Agriculture And Economy
News

Lets get Kenya out of FATF list

May 9, 2025

LATEST STORIES

Private vs Public Pension Funds in Kenya

June 30, 2025

The mechanics of currency manipulation

June 27, 2025

Understanding how to access your pension savings in Kenya.

June 27, 2025

What happened to president Ruto’s economic dream?

June 27, 2025

Opinion: Populism feeds votes, not growth

June 27, 2025

Competitive advantages of small businesses

June 26, 2025

Opinion: Invest in sports for national prosperity

June 26, 2025

Ethiopia’s access to Eritrean ports is a game-changer for trade

June 26, 2025
  • About Us
  • Meet The Team
  • Careers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Email us: editor@thesharpdaily.com

Sharp Daily © 2024

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
    • Politics
  • Business
    • Banking
  • Investments
  • Technology
  • Startups
  • Real Estate
  • Features
  • Appointments
  • About Us
    • Meet The Team

Sharp Daily © 2024