The Court of Appeal will have to hear a case challenging the new NSSF contributions afresh.
This is after the Supreme Court sent the file back to the said court to determine some of the fundamental issues that were not addressed in the case.
The enactment of the NSSF Act triggered a wave of constitutional petitions before the High Court and Employment and Labour Relations Court.
As a result, five petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the act.
The petitions filed in different courts were consolidated and heard by the ELRC Court in Nairobi.
In 2023, the court termed the Act as unconstitutional to the extent that the National Assembly excluded the Senate from the enactment.
Aggrieved, the NSSF Board of Trustees and the Attorney General appealed.
"The Court of Appeal adopted a rather restrictive view of the NSSF Act 2013, in holding that the matter before the ELRC did not emanate from an employer-employee dispute," said the Supreme Court judges.
They also found that the ELRC had no powers to determine the case and that the High Court should have handled the dispute. But the matter was appealed to the Apex court.
The Supreme Court after hearing the matter on Wednesday issued its judgment saying the ELRC court had jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of the NSSF Act 2013.
"The Supreme Court judges said the court of appeal adopted a rather restrictive view of each of NSSF Act 2013, in holding that the matter before the ELRC did not emanate from an employer-employee dispute," they said.
The Supreme Court judges explained that the provisions of the NSSF Act, requiring employers and employees to contribute specific amounts of money to a social security fund cannot be said to have nothing to do with an employer-employee relationship.
"The appeal is narrowly allowed on the ground that the ELRC had jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of the NSSF Act 2013," they said.
They subsequently directed the matter be remitted to the court of appeal to determine 'the substantive merits of the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC)'
They also ordered that the matter be heard on a priority basis.
"Due to the nature of the matter, the surrounding public interest and the time taken by the case in the corridors of justice, it is prudent that the matter be heard on a priority basis," they said.