President William Ruto says his government will appeal a ruling declaring the housing levy unconstitutional.
Speaking in Meru on Friday, the head of state said the affordable housing project was meant to create employment for the youth.
“We are going to appeal the decision. We will make the requisite law so that our agenda to create employment for jobless youths who have finished school but have nowhere to go is realized through the housing projects,” Dr Ruto said.
“It is the first time in the Republic of Kenya that we have an administration that has a clear and demonstrable plan to create jobs for millions of young Kenyans.”
The government was deducting 1.5 per cent from employees with employers matching the amount.
Read: Win for Salaried Kenyans as Court of Appeal Declares Housing Levy Unconstitutional
The appellate court dismissed the State’s applications seeking a stay of execution for the judgment that found the Housing Levy to be unconstitutional.
The judges; Lydia Achode, John Mativo and Mwaniki Gachoka, said that if they affirm the constitutional invalidity of the challenged laws, then some far-reaching decisions that will have been undertaken may not be reversed.
The judges contended that it would be unfair to deduct the monies because they could not foretell how the case would turn out.
Refunding the money, the court observed, would complicate the case if it was determined to be unconstitutional.
It was also found that the Housing Levy only applied to salaried Kenyans—a procedure the court believed was unjust.
“The trial Court held that the Housing Levy was introduced without a legal framework. It also held that the levy was targeting a section of Kenyans. In our view, public interest lies in awaiting the determination of the appeal,” the bench ruled.
“This is because if the stay sought is granted at this stage, should the appellate Court affirm the impugned decision, then some far-reaching decisions that will have been undertaken pursuant to the impugned laws may not be reversible. 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.”
