Judgment summary
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 6th June 2026 by which the Applicant sought extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, Statement of Facts and related documents, and sought orders that documents dated 17th June 2026 already filed be deemed properly filed and served.
The Tribunal considered Section 13(3) and (4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act together with Rule 10(1)(2) and (3) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, and applied the factors set out in Leo Sila Mutiso -vs- Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, Civil Application Nai. 251 of 1997. It found that the delay of about 10 months was sufficiently explained by the Applicant's sickness and allowed the application.
Background
The Respondent issued an Objection Decision dated 8th September 2025. The Applicant stated that she was hospitalised and unable to access her emails and iTax portal during the relevant period, preventing her from filing her objection and appeal in time. She attached a sick sheet from Kenyatta National Hospital and a further sick sheet dated 25th May 2026 confirming she could only resume duties on 2nd June 2026 (recorded in the judgment as "2nd Juen 2026"). The application for extension of time was filed on 5th July 2026, and the Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts are dated 17th June 2026 (also referred to in the orders as dated 6th June 2026). The Respondent did not file a response to the application.
Core dispute
The issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under Section 13(3) and (4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, together with Rule 10(1)(2) and (3) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, to extend time for the Applicant to file her Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, Statement of Facts and related documents against the Respondent's Objection Decision, given that the appeal was filed approximately 10 months late.
Court findings
The Tribunal held that the power to extend time for filing an appeal out of time is discretionary and must be exercised with an abundance of caution, applying the factors from Leo Sila Mutiso -vs- Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi: length of delay, reasons for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the Respondent.
The Tribunal noted that Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act permits extension of time on grounds including sickness. It found that the sick sheets attached by the Applicant sufficiently explained the reason for the delay, and that the application was filed within a reasonable time, about 30 days after the Applicant resumed her duties.
The Tribunal concluded that although the delay of 10 months was not inordinate, it had in any event been sufficiently explained, and that the Applicant had met the threshold for extension of time under Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (Cap 469A).
Outcome
The application was allowed. The Applicant's Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts were deemed duly filed and served. The Respondent was given liberty to file its response within the statutory period. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Tribunal has power under Section 13(3) and (4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and Rule 10(1)(2) and (3) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules to extend time for filing appeal documents.
- Whether the Applicant's sickness constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
- Whether the length of the delay, about 10 months, was excessive in the circumstances.
- Whether the application for extension was filed within a reasonable time after the Applicant recovered.