Judgment summary
The Appellant, Extramile Company Limited, appealed against additional tax assessments totalling Ksh 207,028,556.00 raised by the Respondent, Kenya Revenue Authority, for the years 2020 to 2023 covering Corporation Income Tax, VAT, PAYE and withholding tax (paragraph 3).
The Appellant objected to the assessments and, following an Objection Decision dated 3rd October 2025 confirming the additional taxes, filed a Notice of Appeal on 9th October 2025 (paragraphs 4 to 6).
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection contending that the Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts were undated and unsigned, contrary to Rules 4(a) and 5(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 2015 (paragraph 34).
The Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection, finding the pleadings unsigned and undated, and struck out the appeal as incompetent, with each party bearing its own costs (paragraphs 45 to 52).
Background
The Appellant is a registered taxpayer dealing in sugar and cereals (paragraph 1). The Respondent is established under the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, CAP 469, and is mandated under Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act to collect and account for tax revenue (paragraph 2).
Following a compliance check for the years 2020 to 2023, the Respondent issued additional tax assessments amounting to Ksh 207,028,556.00 on 17th July 2025 in relation to Corporation Income Tax, VAT, PAYE and withholding tax (paragraph 3).
The Appellant objected on 13th August 2025. The Respondent's Objection Decision dated 3rd October 2025 confirmed the additional taxes as previously assessed (paragraphs 4 and 5). The Appellant then lodged its Notice of Appeal, dated and filed on 9th October 2025 (paragraph 6).
Core dispute
The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal, filed on 23rd October 2025, raised grounds including the Respondent's alleged use of incorrect import data and selling prices in determining expected sales, the inclusion of local sugar purchases in that determination, the treatment of a related party balance payable of Ksh 37,446,312.00 for 2023, apportionment of input VAT allegedly contrary to Section 17(6) of the VAT Act 2013 (Revised 2024), and the refusal to allow amendment of erroneous returns under Section 15 of the Income Tax Act (paragraph 7).
The Appellant sought to have the Objection Decision set aside and the assessed Corporation tax of Ksh 128,028,814.00, Director Income tax of Ksh 1,388,350.00 and VAT of Ksh 77,585,557.00, inclusive of interest and penalties, vacated (paragraph 18).
The Respondent maintained that its assessments, based on stock and banking analysis using customs import data and NCPB prices, were properly raised under Sections 24, 31 and 59 of the Tax Procedures Act (TPA), and that the Appellant had failed to discharge its burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the TPA and Section 30 of the TAT Act by not providing requested documentation (paragraphs 20 to 42).
The Respondent additionally raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent because the Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts were undated and unsigned, contrary to Rules 4(a) and 5(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 2015 (paragraph 34).
Court findings
The Tribunal first addressed the Respondent's preliminary objection concerning the unsigned and undated pleadings (paragraph 44). Upon perusal, the Tribunal confirmed that the Appellant's pleadings were indeed unsigned and undated (paragraph 45).
Referring to Shah v County Government of Trans Nzoia & Another (Environment & Land Case 11 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 1028 (KLR), the Tribunal noted that a signature authenticates a document and attaches it to its maker, and that an unsigned document, even if filed, is of no consequence (paragraph 46).
The Tribunal found that a signature is a critical element tying a legal document to a party or its representative (paragraph 47), and held that the Appellant lacked locus standi to advance or defend its claims based on the unsigned pleadings, which were void ab initio (paragraph 48).
The Tribunal further relied on Regina Kavenya Mutuku & 3 Others vs United Insurance Company Limited (Civil Case No. 1994 of 2000), which held that an unsigned pleading cannot be valid in law and is not a pleading of anybody (paragraph 49).
Having found the pleadings unsigned, the Tribunal concluded that there was no recourse other than to strike out the appeal (paragraph 50). Given this finding, the substantive grounds of appeal regarding the tax assessments were not determined.
Outcome
The Tribunal found the appeal incompetent on account of the unsigned and undated pleadings and struck it out (paragraph 51(a)).
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs (paragraph 51(b)).
The decision was dated and delivered at Nairobi on 17th July 2026 (paragraph 52 and closing signature block).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts were validly filed given that they were unsigned and undated, contrary to Rules 4(a) and 5(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 2015.
- Whether the Respondent erred in using import data, sugar selling prices and cereal purchase prices to determine expected sales against NCPB prices.
- Whether local sugar purchases were correctly included in the determination of expected sales at NCPB prices.
- Whether the Respondent correctly brought to charge a related party balance payable of Ksh 37,446,312.00 for the year 2023.
- Whether the Respondent erred in apportioning input VAT contrary to Section 17(6) of the VAT Act 2013 (Revised 2024).
- Whether the Appellant should have been permitted to amend erroneous returns to recognise non-vatable sales and claim associated costs under Section 15 of the Income Tax Act.
- Whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the TPA and Section 30 of the TAT Act by providing sufficient supporting documentation.