In today’s court news, High Court declines to stop parliament from forwarding NG-CDF bill to the president.
The high court has declined to issue orders stopping Parliament from forwarding the NG-CDF bill 2025 to the president for signing.
High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi said there was no reason to grant the orders at this stage instead he directed the parties to file their submissions and appear in court on June 5 for further directions.
“There is no reason to grant interim conservatory orders at this stage since the parties are already before the court,The issue of conservatory orders can still be revived on June 5 when the court will issue further directions on the ruling date.” The court ruled.
In the case, Katiba Institute had argued that the Bill and its associated processes, including the scheduled public participation, are unnecessary and violate the constitutional requirement for prudent and responsible public spending.
However, during the mention, the respondents told the court that the matter is premature, stating that the Bill had not yet been presented to the President. They added that the Bill was still before the Senate for its first reading and not yet before the full Parliament. The respondents further argued that the petitioner had failed to consider the ripeness of the case.The high court has declined to issue orders stopping Parliament from forwarding the NG-CDF bill 2025 to the president for signing.
High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi said there was no reason to grant the orders at this stage instead he directed the parties to file their submissions and appear in court on June 5 for further directions.
“There is no reason to grant interim conservatory orders at this stage since the parties are already before the court,The issue of conservatory orders can still be revived on June 5 when the court will issue further directions on the ruling date.” The court ruled.
In the case, Katiba Institute had argued that the Bill and its associated processes, including the scheduled public participation, are unnecessary and violate the constitutional requirement for prudent and responsible public spending.
However, during the mention, the respondents told the court that the matter is premature, stating that the Bill had not yet been presented to the President. They added that the Bill was still before the Senate for its first reading and not yet before the full Parliament. The respondents further argued that the petitioner had failed to consider the ripeness of the case.
