The NSSF Ruling: Chaffs From Facts, Who Is Saying The Truth?

The Supreme Court has made an interesting ruling on the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) Act. After the ruling, so many sentiments are flying around with no clear distinction line of where the truth lies. Mainstream media is leading the way in the misinterpretation of the ruling.

First, the Supreme Court has indeed made significant strides in a case involving the Kenya Tea Growers Association and the National Social Security Fund (NSSF). This case has brought to light the complexities of constitutional law and the jurisdiction of Kenyan courts.

Today, the Supreme Court has annulled a Court of Appeal decision declaring the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) Act unconstitutional citing jurisdiction infringement.

In a decision rendered on Wednesday, the country’s highest court determined that a consolidated petition contesting the statute fell within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) and that the Court of Appeal wrongfully assumed jurisdiction on the matter.

Read Also: NSSF Set To Relaunch Haba Haba As Part Of Its Strategic Plan

“It is our holding that where the Court of Appeal determines that a trial court has acted without jurisdiction in determining a matter, it cannot assume original jurisdiction over the same,” a full bench of the court led by Chief Justice Martha Koome determined.

The Supreme Court further argued that the Appellate Court, having determined the question of contested jurisdiction between the Constitutional Court and ELRC, appeal judges ought to have proceeded to remit the matter to the right court for determination.

But before we go there, here is the ruling of the Supreme Court:

Read Also: The NSSF New Enhanced Rates’ Discussion: Separating Chaff From Facts

The Supreme Court addressed several critical issues:

1. Right to Appeal: They determined that one of the appellants had the right to participate in the appeal, confirming the importance of allowing relevant parties to engage in legal processes.
2. Jurisdictional Tug-of-War: The Court examined whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) had the power to determine the constitutionality of the NSSF Act. They concluded that the ELRC did not have the authority to rule on the Act’s constitutionality as it was not within their mandate.
3. Constitutional Scrutiny: The Supreme Court declared that the ELRC’s previous judgment, which had been in favor of the NSSF Act, was void. The Court of Appeal had been wrong to assume jurisdiction to judge the constitutional validity of the NSSF Act initially.
4. Back to the Drawing Board: The Supreme Court decided that the High Court should be the proper venue for determining the constitutionality of the NSSF Act.
5. Costs of the Legal Battle: In a move emphasizing fairness, the Supreme Court ordered that each party involved in the case would have to bear its legal costs.

Read Also: How To Pay Your NSSF Contributions Via E-Citizen