The High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the 1.5 per cent Affordable Housing levy on claims it amounted to double taxation and discrimination.
In a decision made by a three-judge panel, comprising Justices Olga Sewe, John Chigiti, and Josephine Mong’are, the court dismissed a petition by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, activist Eliud Matindi, and the Katiba Institute, saying the levy was valid and aligns with constitutional provisions.
” The bench is satisfied that there was adequate public participation ahead of the enactment of the Affordable Housing Act 2024. Bench rules that there was adequate effort to get and consider the public’s views on the bill” reads the judgement in part.
They said the Petitioners failed to prove their case in arguing that Sec4 of the Affordable Housing Act 2024 (1.5% of gross income deducted & matched by the employer) is unconstitutional and ruled that the power to determine how taxation is structured, designed and administered rests with Parliament.
“The Housing Levy as provided for in the Affordable Housing Act 2024 is properly in place and in accordance with the Constitution,” the judges said.
They further emphasized that the levy is a crucial component of the government’s strategy to tackle the country’s housing deficit. They dismissed the petitioners’ claims that the levy was discriminatory and unfounded.
“The Affordable Housing Levy as provided for in the Affordable Housing Act 2024 IS NOT discriminatory as alleged by the petitioners. Bench argues the Act provides for deduction of the same from non-payslip Kenyans” they stated.
The petitioners also contended that the Affordable Housing Act overstepped into areas reserved for county governments, particularly regarding housing and urban development, but the court ruled that the Act does not undermine devolution.
The ruling follows six petitions challenging the housing levy, with the plaintiffs arguing that the public had not been adequately consulted and that the law breached various constitutional provisions.
The petitioners have pledged to appeal the decision.
By KBC
