HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1494899,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1494899/?format=api",
"text_counter": 25,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Joe Nyutu",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, the High Court considered the Petition and by a judgment delivered on 12th July, 2024, determined that the Petition was meritorious and made the following orders- (a) That Parliament undertakes sensitisation, adequate, reasonable, sufficient and inclusive public participation in accordance with the Constitution before enacting the said Act and amend the constitutional provisions in terms of this judgment; (b) Compliance with (a) above be undertaken within 120 days of the date of this judgment; (c) Within that period, the Act shall remain suspended; (d) In default of (a) and (b) above, on 10th November, 2024, the following relief shall take effect forthwith- A declaration is hereby issued that the entire Social Health Insurance Act, 2023, the entire Digital Health Act, 2023 and the entire Primary Health Act, 2023 are all unconstitutional for the reasons set out in this judgment, therefore, invalid, null and void. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the respondent applied for stay of judgment to allow them to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The High Court subsequently granted a stay of the decision for a period of 45 days but held that the stay would not affect the suspension of Section 26(5) and 27(4) of the Social Health Insurance Act in light of the finding that they were unconstitutional. The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health, being dissatisfied and aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court, lodged a Notice of Appeal dated 23rd July, 2024, evincing her intention to challenge the decision on appeal. The petitioner, Mr. Joseph Enoch Aura, being satisfied with the substantial judgment, decree and orders of the High Court, urged the Court of Appeal to uphold the said judgment and decree and being dissatisfied with only a part of the said judgment, cross-appealed to the Court of Appeal against- (a) the determination that Section 26(5) and 27(4) of the Social Health Fund Act were rational limitations of the rights of Kenyans envisaged under Article 24 of the Constitution; and, (b) the suspension of the High Court decision for 120 days and the stay of execution of the High Court decision for 45 days. The Cabinet Secretary for Ministry of Health filed an application dated 26th July, 2024, seeking an order for stay of execution and of implementation of the judgment of the High Court pending the hearing and determination of the appeal under the provisions of Rules 1(2) and 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The Cabinet Secretary contended that it is not feasible to enact Statutes that are already enacted and that the High Court has adjudged a standard of public participation that is not within the contemplation of Articles 10 and 118 of the Constitution of Kenya. The Cabinet Secretary further argued that the sensitization of the public, which has been decreed to apply prior to public participation, is akin to civil education which exercise is appropriate in the conduct of a referendum. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Court of Appeal considered the principles upon which it grants stay, whether the intended appeal must, in the first place, be arguable and a demonstration that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted. The The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
}