Court declines bid to table pending bills report in Sh6.1bn NYS case

The High Court has declined an attempt by defendants in a Sh6.1 billion National Youth Service (NYS) case to compel the release of a report by the Pending Bills Verification Committee.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Rose Ougo at the Milimani Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division, the court declined an application seeking orders to have the committee’s report formally tabled before the court.

"The report of the Committee is for consumption by the National Treasury and shall not have any effect on the matter before the Court," she ruled.

The suit, filed by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, seeks, among other orders, a declaration that 277 payment vouchers linked to the National Youth Service are fraudulent.

The Commission is also asking the court to prohibit any payments arising from the vouchers and to award damages against public officers accused of breach of fiduciary duty and misfeasance in public office.

During the proceedings, counsel for the 5th and 6th defendants urged the court to direct that the Pending Bills Verification Committee report be produced, arguing it was relevant to the issues in dispute.

 They further argue that continued withholding of the vouchers by the EACC could unfairly prejudice them. 

However, the EACC opposed the application, maintaining that the committee’s mandate was separate from its statutory role and that the report was not necessary for determining the case.

The Commission argued that the matter before the court was anchored on its exclusive mandate under Section 11(1)(j) of the EACC Act, and that the committee’s report would have no bearing on the legal questions before the court.

It further pointed out that the committee’s mandate lapsed on December 31, 2025, and that the body was not a party to the proceedings.

In dismissing the application, Justice Ougo agreed with the Commission’s position, holding that the mandates of the EACC and the verification committee were distinct and that the report was not essential to the resolution of the dispute.

“As urged by the Commission, its mandate and that of the Committee are different, and as such the report is not paramount to the determination of the case,” the judge held, adding that the court was not inclined to compel a non-party entity to file a report.

The court further noted that the defendants had not, in their earlier application dated December 15, 2025, sought orders requiring the committee to file its report upon completion of the verification exercise, weakening the basis for the request.

However, Justice Ougo clarified that the defendants were not barred from relying on the report altogether.

She held that any party wishing to rely on the document could still introduce it as part of their evidence during the hearing, rather than seek a court directive compelling its production.

The ruling comes against the backdrop of earlier orders preserving the subject matter of the suit.

The court confirmed that interim orders issued on April 21, 2026, will remain in force until May 6, 2026, when the matter is scheduled for mention.