Court strikes out petition challenging Finance Act 2026 over MPs' absenteeism
National
By
Nancy Gitonga
| Jul 03, 2026
The High Court has struck out a petition seeking to nullify the Finance Act, 2026 and the Appropriations Act, 2026 over claims that more than half of MPs skipped the crucial vote passing the Bills.
Justice Patrick Otieno ruled that the petition was prematurely filed after the petitioners had first bypassed the statutory procedure for obtaining the National Assembly's attendance records under the Access to Information Act before moving to court.
The petition, filed by advocates Shadrack Sharu Muyesu and Nimrod Matunda Odongo, challenged the constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2026 and the Appropriations Act, 2026, arguing that although the constitutional quorum of 50 MPs was met, only 162 of the 349 members participated in the final vote on June 18, leaving 187 lawmakers absent.
The advocates argued that the absence of more than half the House undermined the constitutional principles of representation and deliberative law-making and sought to have the two Acts declared unconstitutional.
The case came amid public scrutiny after reports indicated that several prominent lawmakers were among those who did not participate in the decisive vote.
Those reported absent included Kiharu MP Ndindi Nyoro, Kimilili MP Didmus Barasa, Maragua MP Mary Wamaua, Maara MP Kareke Mbiuki, Tinderet MP Julius Melly, Ndia MP George Kariuki, Kiambaa MP John Njuguna alias Kawanjiku, Likuyani MP Innocent Mugabe, Thika Town MP Alice Ng'ang'a and Kisii Woman Representative Doris Donya.
However, Justice Otieno found that the petition's key prayer was an order compelling the Speaker of the National Assembly, Moses Wetangula, to produce a verified attendance register, yet the petitioners had never formally requested the records under the Access to Information Act.
"The designed anchor for the rest of the petition was the request for the attendance register," the judge said.
He added: "There is no plausible reason advanced to justify and merit bypassing the Access to Information Act."
The judge concluded that when so unripe, the petition becomes an obvious subject of being struck out, not dismissed.
The Speaker of the National Assembly and Parliament had argued that the petition had been overtaken by events after President William Ruto assented to the Bills on June 23.
The Attorney-General, through Deputy Chief State Counsel Kaumba Samwel Odiwuor, sought consolidation with a related petition by the Consumer Federation of Kenya pending at the Milimani High Court.
Justice Otieno rejected the mootness argument, holding that the petitioners had anticipated the President's assent by challenging both the Bills and the resulting Acts.
"To hold that a constitutional challenge to a legislative process is rendered moot the moment the President signs a Bill into law would allow the executive and legislature to defeat any judicial oversight of the legislative process simply by rushing the assent," he ruled.
Although he struck out the petition, the judge praised the advocates for raising an issue of public importance, describing them as public-spirited citizens raising an important constitutional question.
"Such public spiritedness must be encouraged as a good civic education avenue on access to justice and ought not be penalised in costs," he said