1.The petitioners through a petition dated 17th June 2020 supported by supporting affidavit by Mathew Koech sworn on the even date seek the following reliefs:-
2.The brief background of this matter is that on 25th April 2020, amendments to VAT Act amending paragraph 10 of Part II of the first Schedule to the VAT Act came into operation. The said amendment, the process and legislation and its implementation by the 1st Respondent resulted into the current Petition.
The 1st Respondent’s Response
3.The 1st respondent is opposed to the petition and in doing so filed ground of opposition dated 30th July 2020 setting out four (4) grounds of opposition thus:-
4.The 1st respondent further filed a replying affidavit by James Muturo sworn on 4th August 2020.
The 2nd Respondent’s Grounds of Opposition
5.The 2nd respondent is opposed to the petitioner’s petition and has filed grounds of opposition dated 24th June 2020 setting out seven grounds of opposition being as follows:-
The 3rd Respondent’s Response
6.The 3rd respondent in opposition to the petition filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 3rd July 2020 setting out seven (7) grounds thus:-
7.The 3rd respondent further filed replying affidavit by Michael Sialai sworn on 3rd July 2020.
8.I have carefully considered the pleadings, parties rival submissions and from the aforesaid I find that the following issues arise for consideration:-
A. Whether there was public participation in the enactment of the tax laws (Amendment) Act 2020.
10.The guiding values and principles of governance including the rule of law, accountability, democracy, and participation of the people enshrined in article 10(2) of the Constitution should be adhered to.
12.The Court in the case of Pearlberg vs Varty  1 WLR 534 the Court held that:
13.The petitioner and 2nd interested party challenge the process and substance of legislation. It is contended the process leading to enactment of an Act is constitutionally flawed, the resulting legislation is also flawed and therefore, that would be the end of the matter. The process of enactment is challenged on ground of lack of public participation and the impugned Act is therefore challenged as being unconstitutional because the National Assembly failed to facilitate meaningful participation and genuinely consider public views in its enactment.
14.The respondents and 1st interested party contend that there was sufficient public participation before the impugned amendment was introduced to paragraph 10 of the part II of First Schedule of the value Added Tax Act, 2013.
15.It is trite that parliament has Constitutional obligation to take legislative and policy measures to ensure that there is progressive realization of each and every right guaranteed by the Constitution. The National Assembly’s mandate to enact, amend and repeal laws is derived from the Constitution.
16.Public Participation is embodied in article 10(2) of the Constitution which establishes the founding values which include, among others, transparency, accountability and participation of the people. The Constitution contemplates a participatory democracy that is accountable and transparent and makes provisions for public involvement in legislative affairs hence article 118 of the Constitution provides thus:-
18.The respondents contend that there was sufficient public participation as before the impugned legislation was enacted into law, a special gazette was issued vide Kenya Gazette Supplement No 36 (National Assembly Bills No 8) (See exhibit marked MK.1 in the Applicant’s Supporting Affidavit). It further stated in addition, vide a letter dated 1st April 2020 the Clerk of the National Assembly wrote a letter to the relevant stakeholders inviting them to make their submission on the proposed amendment.
19.It is averred that in the petitioner’s own admission at paragraphs 5 to 10 and 16(d) vi – vii of the affidavit of Mr Koech supporting the application, he admits that among other processes there was public participation. His complaint is all about the time it took to allow them give their views.
21.The National Assembly it is urged debated and passed the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (National Assembly Bill No 12 of 2018) and the President assented to the Bill to become law. It is contended further that the National Assembly did conduct public participation and took the views of the public into account and the evidence of public participation is annexed in Mr Sialai’s replying affidavit at pages 98 – 101, and specifically the exhibit marked MS – 1, (see the photocopies of the Nation and Standard Newspapers of 1st and 8th April, 2020). There were various memoranda submitted by various agencies of government and other stakeholders including the Advocates on record for the Petitioner and various insurance agencies and brokerage companies as shown at pages 102 – 282 in the said affidavit of Mr Michael Sialai.
22.In addition to the aforesaid and further as it can be seen from the stakeholders memoranda the petitioner’s Members were duly represented through the Memoranda received from the Chief Executive Officer Anjarwalla & Khanna, the advocates on record for the petitioner, M/s Bima Intermediaries Association of Kenya (IAK) and the Association of Insurance Brokers which were considered by the Committee. The Committee subsequently took into account the views of the two and made its recommendations on the submissions.
23.Upon consideration of the aforesaid against the petitioners claim that the amendments to the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2020 were approved and passed without subjecting the provisions to public participation is therefore not supported by facts. That allegation is neither factual nor supported by any evidence.
25.Arising out of the aforesaid and considering the averments by the petitioners that there was no public participation because the National Assembly did not invite the petitioner to a public forum, I find that has no basis in law. Consequently, the enactment of the Tax Laws (Amendment), Bill, 2020 did not violate the principle of public participation under the Constitution or at all.
26.It is trite that there is presumption of constitutionality of statutes until the contrary is proved, as was held by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Ndyanavo vs Attorney General  EA 495, which was a restatement of the law in the English case of Pearlberg vs Varty  1 WLR 534, where the Court held that:-
27.Additionally on issue of public participation, I find guidance in the Judgment of Court of Appeal in the case of Robert N Gakuru & others vs Governor Kiambu County & 3 others (2014) eKLR, which discussed the principle of Public Participation. The court, while acknowledging the centrality of the principle of public participation, sought to determine what exactly amounts to public participation. In determining this, the court stated:-
28.In the recent High Court decision in Law Society of Kenya vs The Attorney General and 10 others Petition No 3 of 2016 the court held as follows with respect to public participation:-
29.In view of the above I find that the public participation exercise carried out prior to promulgation of the impugned amendments fits the bill prescribed by the Supreme Court in British American Tobacco Kenya Limited case (supra), and as emphasised by the Court such allegations will not automatically vitiate the process, having considered of the emergence of the Covid-19 Pandemic as the relevant circumstance of the promulgation in issue. Accordingly I am satisfied that the Respondents have demonstrated that there was public participation before the impugned amendment to paragraph 10 of part II of First Schedule of the Value Added Tax Act, 2013 was introduced.
B. Whether the impugned amendment is in violation of articles 1, 10, 27, 35, 118(1) (b), 201(a) (b) (i) and 232 of the Constitution.
30.The petitioner contention is that the constitutionality of legislation is a rebuttable presumption and where a court is satisfied that the legislation fails to meet the Constitutional muster, nothing bars the Court from declaring it to be unconstitutional.
31.It is of paramount importance in deterring constitutional validity of a Statute to consider the purpose or effect of the legislation. The purpose of enacting a legislation or the effect of implementing the legislation so enacted may lead to nullification of the statute or its provision if found to be inconsistent with the Constitution.
32.In support of the above proposition reliance is placed in the case of Kenya Human Rights Commission vs Attorney General & another  eKLR where Mwita J, adopted the decision in Olum & another vs Attorney General  EA, where it was stated that:-
33.The petitioner in further support of this position on purpose and effect being relevant in determining the constitutionality of a legislation or statute has placed reliance in the decision of Court of Appeal in Centre for Rights Education Awareness & Another vs John Harun Mwau & 6 others  eKLR where the Court observed that in determining whether a statue is constitutional or not, the Court must determine the object and purpose of the impugned Act and this can be discerned in the intention expressed in the Act itself.
34.The petitioner contend that in the instant matter, the long title of the Tax Laws Amendment Act, 2020 states that it is ‘an Act of Parliament to make amendments to tax related laws.’ The objective of enacting the Act in the Memorandum of objects and reasons in the Bill (refer to page 3 of MK 1 annexed to the Supporting Affidavit) that was introduced in the National Assembly states under The Value Added Tax Act, 2013 (No. 3 of 2013) ‘the Bill seeks to amend the Value Added Tax Act to align the incentives contained in the Bill with the best practice.’ It would be important to state that, the Notice to members of the Public as contained in the Daily Nation Newspaper of 1 April 2020 (refer to page 7 of MK 1 annexed to the Supporting Affidavit and page 98 of the 3rd respondent’s replying affidavit) states ‘The Bill proposes amendments to various tax related statutes to cushion the Economy and Kenyans against the economic effects of the Covid –
35.Article 2(4) of the Constitution clearly provides that any law including customary law, that is inconsistence with the Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and any act or omission in contravention of the Constitution is invalid. There are also guiding values and principles of governance including the rule of law; accountability; democracy; and participation of the people enshrined in article 10(2) of the Constitution.
36.On construing the constitution article 259 of the Constitution enjoins this Court to interpret the Constitution in a manner that (a) promotes its purposes, values, and principles; (b) advances the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights; (c) permits the development of the law; and (d) contributes to good governance.
37.The petitioner in support of the petition submits on ambiguity, uncertainty and absurdity of the impugned Amendment in which the petitioner contend the impugned Amendment is in violation of article 10(2)(a) and 10(2)(d) of the Constitution.
38.Article 10(1)(b), 10(2)(a) and 10(2)(d) of the Constitution provides:-
39.The Court clearly expressed itself on the issue of the rule of law regarding certainty in the case of Keroche Industries Ltd vs Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 others  eKLR where Nyamu J (as he then was) held:- “one of the ingredients of the rule of law is certainty of law. Surely the most focused deprivations of individual interest in life, liberty or property must be accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards that ensure certainty and regulating of law. This is a vision and a value recognized by our Constitution and it is an important pillar of the rule of law.” (Emphasis supplied)
40.In the instant Petition, there is no dispute, that the services of the Petitioner’s members under paragraph 2 of Part II of the First Schedule to the VAT Act are VAT exempt. This notwithstanding the 1st Respondent has in response averred that the impugned Amendment is targeted at insurance agency and brokerage services. The actual cost of the imposition of VAT on these services will be and is borne by the petitioner’s members whose services are VAT exempt under the VAT Act. The Petitioner has provided copies of invoices received by its members from the Intermediaries evidencing this. (refer to the Further Affidavit of Mathew Koech sown on 6 July 2020 at pages 7 – 26 of MK2).
41.One has therefore to ask what are the practical effects of the implementation of the impugned Amendment which has resulted in the Petitioner’s members paying and will pay VAT on the otherwise exempt services through the back door. It is no doubt clear that the law if applied as the Respondents aver; it would be that in one hand, it providing that the services of the Petitioner’s members are VAT exempt, yet on the other hand through the Impugned Amendment subjecting the otherwise exempt services to VAT.
42.The respondents on their part did not file any single document in response to the petition, addressing the issue related to uncertainty, ambiguity and absurdity created by the impugned Amendment. I therefore find that this issue is uncontroverted by the respondents.
43.The respondents contention that article 209 of the Constitution empowers the National Assembly to impose taxes and charges. Such taxes including income tax, value-added tax, customs duties and other duties on import and export goods and excise tax is not a response to the issue raised herein related to uncertainty, ambiguity and absurdity created by the impugned Amendment.
44.The respondents urge that the manner in which tax is defined, administered and collected is a matter for Parliament to define and it is not for the court to interfere merely because the legislature would have adopted a better or different definition of the tax or provided an alternative method of administration or collection. Under article 209 of the Constitution, I find that the legislature retains wide authority to define the scope of the tax.
46.The respondents urge under article 210(1) of the Constitution that “No tax or Licensing fee maybe imposed, waived or varied except as provided by the legislation.” Consequently, it is urged by the Respondents that it is within the authority of the National Assembly to enact legislation governing the manner in which a particular form of tax is administered including the manner in which it imposed, calculated and enforced. It is therefore urged that the National Assembly has not violated the Constitution in enacting the Tax Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2020. In addition it is contended that imposition of taxes cannot be unconstitutional as the Constitution permits the National Government to impose taxes as a means of raising revenue. Further, a Statute cannot be unconstitutional merely because it does not meet the economic interest of the petitioner.
47.On issue of uncertainty, ambiguity and absurdity that may be created by impugned Amendment, a three (3) Judge bench of the High Court in the case of Katiba Institute & another vs Attorney General & another  eKLR, held that “elementary justice demands legal certainty of rules affecting the citizen. A legislation or provision can also be unconstitutional on grounds of cause and effect otherwise known as purpose or effect. Where the purpose or effect results into unconstitutional effects the provision or statute may be nullified for being unconstitutional, “To determine the constitutionality of a section of a statute or Act of Parliament, the Court has to consider the purpose and effect of the impugned statute or section thereof. If its purpose does not infringe a right guaranteed by the Constitution, the Court must go further and examine the effect of the implementation. If either its purpose or the effect of its implementation infringes a right guaranteed by the Constitution, the impugned statute or section thereof shall be declared unconstitutional.” (Emphasis supplied).
48.The court upon finding that the impugned Amendment creates uncertainty, ambiguity and absurdity is obligated to declare it as unconstitutional as the effect of the implementation would infringe a right already guaranteed under the Constitution, in particular, rights under article 10(2)(a) and 10(2)(d) of the Constitution.
50.I find the uncertainty and ambiguity of the Impugned Amendment makes it impossible for the petitioner’s members to plan for the tax burden that has been indirectly imposed on their services which are VAT exempt. It is further not in doubt that the insurance on its part have no way of passing on the cost of VAT to policy holders. The imposition of VAT would therefore be a significant increase in the expenses of the Petitioner’s members whose income is already adversely affected by the current Covid-19 pandemic.
51.It has further been demonstrated that the ambiguity of the Impugned Amendment and the confusion it has created to the insurance industry is further characterized by the following:-
53.On infringement arising out of impugned Amendment the Respondents contend the uncertainty of the impugned amendment does not arise as a matter of right. It is their contention that it is subject to judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The legal burden of proof is consciously or unconsciously the acid test applied when coming to a decision in any particular case. It is urged that Rajah JA put forth this fact succinctly in Britestone Pte Ltd vs Smith & Associations Far East Ltd (2007) 4 SLR ® 855, thus:-
54.On infringement of article 10(2)(d) of the Constitution, the respondents contended that the World Commission on Environment, 1987, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press), defined ‘sustainable development’ as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the future generations to meet their own needs.’ The provision of insurance services is a fundamental ingredient that underpins economic development and growth in society. The insurance industry supports individuals, communities, and businesses to understand, manage and mitigate risks and supports their assets. In essence a thriving marketing supports a vibrant community and vice versa.
55.The petitioner in further response aver that it has not been subjected to VAT since 1989 and this was intended to allow the sector to grow by increasing penetration of insurance products and sevices in the Kenyan market in order to support individuals and businesses mitigate various risks. However, in recent years, insurance penetration in Kenya dropped to 2.43% of GDP, the lowest in 15 years. It is clear with the insurance industry presently even struggling with penetration and growth, any increase in costs to this sector (VAT on insurance brokerage an agent services) will definitely negatively impact the role that the sector can play in sustainable development especially in this era of climate change and even bigger disruption that has been brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic and these are the effects that will continue to be felt for years to come. The insurance industry therefore needs to be supported so that it can assist communities, businesses and individuals mitigate the risks.
56.The petitioner urge that the impugned amendment is in violation of article 232 (2) of the Constitution for its failure to comply with the principles of public service. It is petitioner’s position that the objective of involving the public in the law making process is to ensure that the legislators are aware of the concerns of the public, promote legitimacy and awareness about the legislation. This not only improves the quality of the law-making process, but it also serves as an important principle that government should be open, accessible, accountable, and responsive as provided under article 232(1) (d) of the Constitution.
57.It is petitioner’s contention that as regards the impugned Amendment, the parliament was not open, accountable, and responsive as envisaged under article 232(1)(d) of the Constitution when passing the Tax Bill. The Bill proposed amendments to various tax related statutes and as indicated in the Notice of 1 April 2020 in the Daily Nation Newspaper the Bill was to cushion the economy and Kenyans against economic effects of the Covid – 19 pandemic, however, the Parliament took advantage of the situation to introduce other measures that were not pandemic related in clear violation of article 10 (2) (c) which expressly provides that the National values and principles of governance, that state organs and officers should consider when making laws, include transparency and accountability.
58.The petitioners urges that its members were not provided with meaningful opportunities for public participation and therefore the TLAA was passed without meeting this critical constitutional muster. The Impugned Amendment affected the rights and fundamental freedoms of the Petitioner and the Public at large yet it was done as though it was a minor and inconsequential amendment and without engaging the public more so those who would be affected by the deletion (the petitioner’s members).
59.The petitioner contend that its members rights as enshrined under article 27 & 201 (a) (b) (1) of the Constitution were infringed. Article 27(1) of the Constitution provides
60.Article 201 of the Constitution provides:-
61.The respondent contend the Tax Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2020 proposed to modernize various tax statutes in order to remove the many unfair tax incentives that exist in the system, so as to comply with article 201 (b) (i) on promoting fairness in the sharing of taxation burden.
62.The petitioner urge that they were discriminated by the Respondents actions. Discrimination is described in the Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition as:-
63.The petitioners in support thereto contend that the impugned Amendment was introduced at a time when the Government was giving tax incentives to Kenyans to cushion them against the adverse effects of the Covid – 19 pandemic on the economy. The effect it is urged by the petitioner that the impugned Amendment has instead of the petitioner enjoying the tax incentives rolled out by the Government, been subjected to additional tax burdens during the Covid-19 pandemic.
64.In the instant petition it is not clear, nor is the Petitioner aware of the basis upon which parliament decided to subject the insurance sector to additional tax burden during the Covid-19 period whilst omitting the other sectors of the Kenyan economy by stating that the insurance sector had come of age and needed to contribute to government revenue. It is urged by the Petitioner however what is clear is that there was an intricate scheme to deny the Petitioner unconstitutionally, discriminately, and illegally, as a stakeholder in the insurance industry of its right to participate in the legislative process considering the importance of the legislation and its impact on the public.
65.The respondents contend that mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not amount to discrimination within the prohibition of the equal protection clause. To attract the operation of the clause, it is necessary for one to show that the selection or differentiation was unreasonable or arbitrary, that it did not rest on any basis having regard to the objective the legislature or the Constitution had in view. An equal protection was not violated if the expectation which was made was required to be made by some other provision of the Constitution, and that it was not possible to exhaust the circumstances or criteria which would afford a reasonable basis for classification in all cases.
66.Reliance in support of the aforesaid proposition is placed in the case of British American Tobacco Kenya PLC (formerly British Tobacco Kenya Limited) vs. Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health & 2 others; Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance & Another (Interested Parties); Mastermind Tobacco Kenya Limited (The Affected Party)  eKLR.
67.It is trite law therefore that differentiation and categorization of various taxes does not amount to discrimination. The High Court in Nelson Andaya Havi vs Law Society of Kenya & 3 others  eKLR stated as follows at paragraph 92;
68.The respondents contention is therefore that any differentiation in taxes therefore a firm Constitutional basis. Further the High Court in Nelson Andaya Havi vs Law Society of Kenya & 3 others  eKLR stated that it is not every differentiation that amounts to discrimination.
69.The respondents urge that the imposition of taxes does not amount to discrimination as such the petitioner’s allegations that they have been discriminated against by paying taxes has no basis in law.
70.The petitioner urge that discrimination which is forbidden by the Constitution involves an element of unfavourable bias. Reference is placed in the case of Nyarangi & 3 others vs Attorney General (2008) KLR 688, where Nyamu, J (as he then was) referring to the repealed Constitution and defining discrimination stated as follows:-
71.The petitioner additionally drew this Courts attention for persuasive authority to the decision of the constitutional Court of South Africa in Prinsloo vs Van der Linde  ZACC 5 where at paragraph 25 the Court held that:
72.There is no dispute in this Petition that VAT is a consumption tax that should be borne by the final consumer of the supply. Section 17 of the VAT Act allows VAT registered tax payers to claim a credit for input VAT against their output VAT to ensure the input VAT is effectively passed to the final consumer (in this case the insurance policy holders). It is noted that the VAT charged by the Insurance brokers and agents will be output VAT for them and will be passed to the petitioner’s members which would be classified as input VAT. However, it is clear that section 17(6) and 17 (7) of the VAT Act limits the amount of input VAT claimable where input VAT is used to make exempt supplies. The insurance sector was therefore unfairly targeted by imposition of the novel tax in the form of VAT while other sectors were enjoying tax reliefs. This is a complete contravention articles 27(1) of the Constitution.
73.In view of the above it is evidently clear that the impugned Amendment, discriminates against the petitioner’s members who would not be able to claim a credit for input VAT as provided for in the VAT Act and which is enjoyed by other tax payers as the petitioner’s members are exempt from VAT and would therefore not be able to effectively pass this input VAT to the final customer who are the insurance policy holders. In view whereof I find that is in effect contravention of article 27 (1) of the Constitution.
74.Further the main income for Insurance Companies is VAT exempt Insurance Premiums; in view wherefore the Insurance companies cannot pass the input VAT cost charged by the insurance agents and brokers to the final consumer of their supply who are the insurance policy holders hence resulting in a heavier tax burden to the petitioner’s members and in violation of article 201 (b) (a) of the Constitution.
C. Whether Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.
75.The respondents contend that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this petition. It is urged this court is bound by doctrine of judicial restraint and that the Parliamentary powers and privileges bar the jurisdiction of this court.
76.The respondents urge that the rationale for non-interference is to circumvent crisis that may arise out of intrusions of one arm into another. The Supreme Court in Speaker of the Senate & another vs Attorney General & 4 others  eKLR, in addressing the role of the courts in parliamentary proceedings and the need for non-interference, held that-;
77.In view of the above it is respondents contention that this honourable court restrains itself from interfering with the business of the 3rd respondent based on the principle of separation of Powers given that the petitioner has so far not shown any of the following in their application and/or petition that:-
79.The respondents therefore plead that the jurisdiction of this Court can only be invoked in the event of breach of the Constitution and there has been no evidence or at all, of such violation of the Constitution and or the right and freedoms enshrined therein. In any case it is averred that the Amendment seeks to advance public interest as the tax intended to be collected from the amendment will be put into public use and benefit.
80.The petitioner on its part contend that the Parliament passed a unconstitutional legislation and further parliament in passing the impugned Amendment, did not uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
81.Article 165(3)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Constitution provides that:-
82.In view of clear provisions of article 165 (3)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Constitution as quoted herein above, and in view of the question raised in the Petition herein, touching on the interpretation of the Constitution including the determination of the question whether any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution, I have no doubt, that this honourable court is clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues raised in the instant petition.
83.I am alive to the fact that whenever a legislation is challenged on grounds that parliament did not adopt it in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, Courts are obliged to consider whether the Parliament in enacting the law in question has given effect to the constitutional obligations.
84.The petitioners in support of the above sought reliance in the case of Katiba Institute & another vs Attorney General & another  eKLR where the Court adopted the position in Doctors for Life International vs Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT12/05)  ZACC 11; 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC); 2006 (6) SA 416 (CC) where it was held that:-
85.Upon consideration of the petitioner’s pleadings and submission, I find that he petitioner has proved that the impugned Amendment resulted in violation of provisions of the Constitution and is therefore unlawful, unenforceable, null and void ab initio.
86.One of the effects of the impugned Amendment is that it creates uncertainty, ambiguity, and absurdity contrary to the principle of the rule of law as set out in article 10 of the Constitution. The law on one hand provides that the services of the petitioner’s members are VAT exempt, yet on the other hand through the Impugned Amendment, is now subjecting the otherwise exempt services to VAT. I find that the petitioner has a right to certainty of the law and this court cannot condone such situation nor allow the ambiguity and uncertainty to persist any more.
87.It has further been shown that the impugned Amendment has discriminatorily introduced VAT which is a novel tax in the insurance sector at a time when other sectors of the economy are being cushioned from adverse economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is discrimination contrary to article 27 of the Constitution.
88.Additionally the impact of a possible unfair tax burden resulting out of the impugned Amendment must be considered while construing the impugned Amendment. This should be considered in the light of the fact that the petitioner’s services are exempted form VAT, however the petitioner’s members cannot pass the input VAT cost charged by the insurance agents and brokers to the final consumer of their supply, who are the insurance policy holders resulting therefore in a heavier tax burden on the petitioner’s members in clear contravention of article 201(b)(i) of the Constitution.
89.Reliance of the above is placed in the case of Tinyefunza vs Attorney General of Uganda  UGCC 3 where it was stated that:-
90.The upshot is that the petitioner’s Petition dated 17th June 2020 is meritorious and is allowed in the following terms:-
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021.J. A. MAKAUJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA