The High Court has fast-tracked a petition challenging the legal framework governing the management and withdrawal of money from certain public funds, with the case scheduled for the highlighting of written submissions on February 17, 2027.
Justice Gregory Mutai directed petitioner Francis Awino to serve the petition and an accompanying application on the respondents in both electronic and hard-copy formats within seven days.
The parties are expected to exchange responses and written submissions before the scheduled hearing, with the judge saying the issues raised warranted an early determination.
“I have considered the Petition and the Notice of Motion, both dated 12th October 2026, together with the supporting affidavit and the annexures thereto. In my view, the Petition and the Motion raise issues that ought to be determined at the earliest opportunity,” Justice Mutai stated.
The case centres on the interpretation of Articles 206 and 228 of the Constitution, which address the handling of public money and the oversight role of the Controller of Budget.
Awino wants the court to determine whether the legal and administrative arrangements governing the identified funds comply with constitutional requirements on withdrawals, expenditure controls, reporting and auditing.
The petitioner is seeking orders compelling the National Treasury to disclose details of the funds listed in Schedule A, including the legal instruments establishing them, their administrators, accounting officers and the procedures governing withdrawals and expenditure.
He is also asking the Treasury to explain the legal basis for arrangements that allow public money to be held outside the Consolidated Fund and clarify whether withdrawals from the identified funds require approval from the Controller of Budget.
The application further seeks information on whether the required approvals have been obtained and what mechanisms are in place to ensure proper reporting, reconciliation and auditing.
Awino also wants the Controller of Budget to file an affidavit outlining the office’s interpretation of Articles 206 and 228 of the Constitution, alongside Section 2 of the relevant Act.
A key question raised in the petition is whether approval for transferring money into a fund is distinct from approval for withdrawing or spending the money later.
The petitioner argues that examining initial transfers alone would not fully establish how public funds are controlled once they have been placed in the identified accounts.
He is also seeking parliamentary committee reports, proceedings and official responses concerning proposals to extend the Controller of Budget’s oversight to special funds.
The application argues that the relevant records are largely held by public institutions and should be disclosed to enable the court to consider the constitutional questions on the basis of documentary evidence.
Awino is seeking the preservation of records relating to the establishment of the funds, legal opinions, official correspondence, expenditure-control frameworks, withdrawal authorisations, financial statements, reconciliation records and audit responses.
The proposed disclosure orders would allow lawful redaction of personal information, security-sensitive material and confidential account identifiers, provided reasons are given for any information withheld.
The petitioner says the records would also help establish whether additional parties should be joined to the proceedings or whether further information is needed before the substantive issues are determined.
He has clarified that the application seeks disclosure of information and preservation of evidence rather than a final determination of the legality of the challenged framework at this stage.
Awino is also not seeking a blanket suspension of revenue collection or essential public services, including healthcare payments, housing programmes, road maintenance and lawful lending programmes.
The court is expected to hear the parties’ arguments when written submissions are highlighted on February 17, 2027. The constitutional questions raised in the petition remain for determination by the court.
