NG-CDF Court Battle: Appeal Filed After Court of Appeal Reinstated 2015 Law
By Shiled Jerono | Updated October 1, 2026
The legal battle over Kenya’s National Government Constituencies Development Fund moved toward the Supreme Court in February 2026 after litigants filed notice that they intended to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling upholding most of the NG-CDF Act, 2015.
What the Court of Appeal decided
A three-judge Court of Appeal bench overturned a High Court decision that had declared the entire 2015 Act unconstitutional. The appellate court held that the High Court had gone too far in striking down the whole statute.
The Court of Appeal nevertheless invalidated one provision dealing with the tenure of constituency fund managers, showing that the judgment did not accept every part of the law unchanged.
Why the challengers appealed
Wanjiru Gikonyo and Cornelius Oduor Opuot filed a notice of appeal on February 6, signalling an intention to ask the Supreme Court to review the appellate judgment.
What the constitutional dispute is about
The long-running litigation raises questions about public finance, devolution, separation of powers and the role of MPs in constituency-level development funding. Supporters of NG-CDF argue that it finances local projects, while challengers have questioned whether its structure complies with constitutional boundaries.
A notice of appeal is not a final Supreme Court judgment
The February filing indicated an intention to appeal. It should not be reported as though the Supreme Court had already determined the merits of the dispute.
Why the constitutional dispute matters
The litigation goes to the design of public finance and separation of powers. Supporters of NG-CDF argue that it finances constituency-level development through the national budget, while challengers have argued that aspects of the framework blur legislative and executive functions or overlap with devolved responsibilities.
The Supreme Court appeal process matters because a final judgment could clarify those constitutional boundaries beyond the individual provisions already considered by lower courts.
