Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury and Planning & 4 others v Okoiti & 52 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court dismisses bid to delay Finance Act 2023 appeal, saying applicants had time but were slow.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court refused to change its earlier order that fast-tracked the hearing of appeals against the Finance Act 2023. A group of respondents asked the court to vary the directions, arguing they needed more time and that their issues were unique. The court disagreed, finding that all their concerns were already covered in the main appeal and that they had enough time to prepare but failed to act promptly. The court also said it has the power to set tight timelines to ensure justice is done quickly.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the directions and orders issued by this Court on 20th August 2024, specifically Order No. (iii), should be varied and set aside.
- 2.Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to institute their intended Petition of Appeal.
- 3.Whether the consolidated appeals should be rescheduled for hearing to allow all parties adequate time to comply with procedural requirements.
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants met the grounds for review of the Court's directions of 20th August 2024.
The applicants did not establish any of the grounds for review under the Fredrick Otieno Outa case, as they failed to show fraud, nullity, misleading of the court, or reliance on a repealed law.
The Court examined the application against the four grounds for review set out in Fredrick Otieno Outa. It found that the applicants merely sought to vary the directions for their convenience, not that the directions were obtained through fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, nor that they were a nullity. The Court noted that the applicants had sufficient time to file their appeal but were indolent, and the directions were not capricious or injudicious.
Whether the applicants' right to a fair hearing was violated by the fast-tracking of the consolidated appeal.
The applicants' right to a fair hearing was not violated because the issues they sought to raise in their intended appeal were already covered in the consolidated appeal, and they could address them through submissions without filing a separate appeal.
The Court reviewed the five issues in the applicants' Notice of Appeal and found that all of them were already germane to the consolidated appeal. For example, the issue of the Act being a bill concerning county governments was raised by other respondents' cross-appeal, and the issue of appropriate reliefs under Articles 2(4) and 23(3) was already part of the appeal. The Court held that these issues could be addressed in submissions without a fresh appeal, and thus no prejudice arose.
Legal principles established
#- Review of a Supreme Court decision is only allowed on four narrow grounds: fraud, nullity, misleading the court, or reliance on a repealed law.
- A party cannot use a review application to simply ask for more time or change directions that they find inconvenient.
- The Supreme Court has inherent power under Rule 3(5) to make orders necessary for justice, even if it overrides normal timelines.
- If a party’s intended appeal issues are already part of a consolidated appeal, they can raise them through submissions without filing a separate appeal.
- Indolence by a party does not justify varying court directions that were not capricious or injudicious.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 29th August 2024 and filed on 30th August 2024 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.There shall be no order as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- S.C. Application No. E037 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act as read with Rule 28(5) of the Supreme Court Rules
Relief refused
#Variation and setting aside of the directions and orders issued on 20th August 2024, specifically Order No. (iii).
The applicants did not show how the impugned directions were a nullity, or were obtained by fraud, deceit or misrepresentation of facts.
Extension of time to institute their intended Petition of Appeal up to 24th September 2024.
The applicants had sufficient time from the Court of Appeal judgment to file their appeal but were indolent; the Court has inherent jurisdiction to make orders meeting the ends of justice notwithstanding timelines.
Rescheduling of the consolidated appeals for hearing on a later date.
It would be prejudicial to the appellants and other affected parties to allow the filing of a subsequent appeal at this stage, and the issues raised by the applicants are already covered in the consolidated appeal.
Costs
There shall be no order as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the applicants have not shown how the impugned directions were a nullity, or were obtained, by fraud, deceit or misrepresentation of facts.
the applicants had, from the date of the Court of Appeal judgement i.e. 31st July 2024, sufficient time to file their appeal especially because of the public interest, sensitivity and urgency of the matters in dispute.
It will be prejudicial to the appellants herein and all the close to fifty (50) other affected parties to allow the filing of a subsequent appeal in this matter at this stage
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Review applications face high bar
When challenging Supreme Court directions, you must strictly prove one of the four Outa grounds. A mere claim of inconvenience or insufficient time will not succeed. Also, if your client’s issues are already in a consolidated appeal, advise them to participate via submissions rather than seek a separate appeal, which risks being seen as indolent.
Fast-tracked appeals can proceed
Businesses affected by the Finance Act 2023 should note that the Supreme Court is prioritising a quick resolution. If you are a party to the consolidated appeal, ensure your legal team is ready to file submissions on time. The court will not delay proceedings for parties who had ample opportunity to prepare after the Court of Appeal judgment.
Court won't bend for late filers
If you are an individual involved in a Supreme Court case, do not wait until the last minute to act. The court expects you to move promptly after a lower court decision. Asking for more time after directions are set is unlikely to succeed unless you can show fraud, nullity, or a similar serious flaw in the court’s order.
Frequently asked questions
#Can the Supreme Court review its own decision in Kenya?+
Yes, but only on very limited grounds: if the decision was obtained by fraud or deceit, if the court lacked competence, if the court was misled into thinking parties consented, or if the decision relied on a repealed law. A simple request for more time is not enough.
What is the Finance Act 2023 case about in Kenya?+
The case challenges the constitutionality of the Finance Act 2023. Several appeals were filed after the Court of Appeal judgment. The Supreme Court consolidated them and set a fast hearing. This ruling rejected an attempt by some respondents to delay the hearing.
What happens if my appeal issues are already in another case in Kenya?+
The Supreme Court may consolidate your appeal or allow you to raise your issues through submissions in the existing case. You do not automatically get a separate hearing. The court will consider whether your issues are truly unique or already covered.
How long do I have to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
Generally, you must file a notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of the judgment you are challenging. The court may extend time, but you must act promptly. In this case, the applicants had from 31 July 2024 but were found to have been indolent.
Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Nakuru County Government v Gikenyi & 77 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E014 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1141 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1141 (KLR)12 Jun 2026
- Sheria Mtaani Na Shadrack Wambui & 6 others v Kajiado County Assembly & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 2 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6954 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6954 (KLR)9 Oct 2025
- Wagitaha Holdings Limited v Haldoor Real Estate Limited & 2 others (Environment and Planning Civil Case E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4405 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4405 (KLR)5 Jun 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury and Planning & 4 others v Okoiti & 52 others", Case Analysis (2024). Petition E031, E032 & E033 of 2024 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2024/57/eng@2024-09-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.