Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal (arising from Nairobi Constitution Petition No. 137 of 2013)· [2024] KECA 524 (KLR)

The Clerk of The National Assembly of Kenya & 1 other v Rev Dr Timothy Njoya & 17 Others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
9 May 2024
6,162 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~25 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that MPs, like all State officers, must pay tax on their salaries and allowances—transitional constitutional provisions cannot create tax exemptions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Court of Appeal decision dismisses an appeal by the Clerk, Speaker, Members of the National Assembly of the 10th Parliament, the Minister of Finance, the Head of Public Service and the Attorney General against a High Court judgment (Warsame J) that had declared that Members of Parliament are State officers obliged to pay tax under Articles 210, 201 and 230 of the Constitution, that no State organ could exempt them from tax, and that the directive by the Head of Civil Service settling MPs' tax obligations from public funds was unconstitutional. The Appellants argued that the trial court relied on unproven evidence (an unproduced circular and newspaper articles) and that the transitional provisions of the Sixth Schedule, together with the National Assembly Remuneration Act and the Income Tax Act, preserved their tax exemptions until the expiry of the 10th Parliament. The Court, sitting as a first appellate court, held that the facts underlying the newspaper reports were admitted and never challenged at trial, so no failure of proof arose. On the substantive question, it held that the saved transitional provisions were limited to what was necessary for the discharge of the business of the National Assembly; that transitional provisions modify but do not exclude substantive constitutional provisions; that section 7 of the Sixth Schedule required existing laws to conform with the Constitution; and that no legitimate expectation contrary to law could arise. The rights saved by section 6 of the Sixth Schedule were held to be collective State rights, not private rights of MPs. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, given its public interest nature.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proof of the circular and reliance on newspaper reports

Holding

The failure to produce the circular and reliance on newspaper articles did not vitiate the High Court judgment because the Appellants admitted the underlying facts and never challenged the admissibility of the newspaper reports at trial

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that burden of proof arises only where a fact is in issue and the evidence adduced must be of probative value. It was not in issue at trial that MPs were seeking not to pay tax; the Appellants did not deny the facts in the newspaper reports in their pleadings, and admissibility was never raised before the trial court. Under section 61 of the Evidence Act admitted facts need not be proved.

p. 8
02

Effect of the transitional provisions of the Sixth Schedule on the taxation of MPs

Holding

The saved provisions were limited to what was necessary for the discharge of the business of the National Assembly and did not exempt Members of the 10th Parliament from paying tax on their salaries and allowances

Reasoning

A plain and contextual reading of sections 3(2), 7 and 10 of the Sixth Schedule shows the saved provisions concerned the composition, legislative power and conduct of business of the Assembly. Section 7 required existing laws to be construed with modifications to conform with the Constitution. Had the intention been to exclude Article 210(3), it would have been expressly stated.

p. 10
03

Legitimate expectation and property rights

Holding

No legitimate expectation not to pay tax could arise, and the rights saved under section 6 of the Sixth Schedule are collective rights of the State, not private rights of Members of Parliament

Reasoning

The Court held that legitimate expectation cannot run contrary to law, and Article 210(3) prohibits any law excluding State officers from tax by reason of office. Section 6 of the Sixth Schedule preserves rights and obligations of the Government, which under the 2010 Constitution are the collective rights of the State for continuity of governmental functions, not private entitlements of individual legislators.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • Transitional provisions modify the application of substantive constitutional provisions for a limited period; they do not exclude or replace them, and they cannot be used to exempt State officers from the constitutional obligation to pay tax under Article 210(3)
  • No legitimate expectation can arise that is contrary to law; Article 210(3) prohibits any law excluding a State officer from payment of tax by reason of the office held
  • The rights and obligations saved by section 6 of the Sixth Schedule are the collective rights and obligations of the State, not private rights of Members of Parliament
  • Facts admitted by parties or by their pleadings need not be proved in civil proceedings; burden of proof under section 109 of the Evidence Act arises only in respect of a fact in issue

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs, in light of the public interest nature of the appeal
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Nairobi Constitution Petition No. 137 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under the Constitution and Appellate Jurisdiction Act (not expressly cited; the Court describes itself as 'a first appellate Court')

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "The Clerk of The National Assembly of Kenya & 1 other v Rev Dr Timothy Njoya & 17 Others", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Appeal (arising from Nairobi Constitution Petition No. 137 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/524/eng@2024-05-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.