Judgment summary
This is a ruling of the Tax Appeals Tribunal on a Notice of Motion dated 4th May 2026 filed by the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Respondent/Applicant) seeking leave to file and serve its statement of facts out of time, and to have the statement of facts dated 15th April 2026 and filed on 24th April 2026 deemed properly on record.
The Appellant, Farmers Choice Limited, opposed the application, alleging that the Commissioner's counsel had made a material misrepresentation during a mention on 23rd April 2026 by stating that the statement of facts had already been filed and served, when the Tribunal's electronic portal showed zero documents on record at that time. The Appellant contended that any consent given was conditional on that representation being true, and that it had withdrawn its consent on the same day.
The Commissioner explained the delay by reference to heavy work exigencies, administrative oversight, and a bounced email that prevented instructions reaching the process server, asserting this was an honest and inadvertent error rather than deliberate misrepresentation.
The Tribunal applied the test under Section 15(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, considering whether the delay was inordinate or whether other reasonable cause existed. It found the 112-day delay from service of the appeal to the filing of the application was not inordinate, and that the Appellant had not demonstrated it would suffer irreparable prejudice if the extension were granted. The Tribunal allowed the application accordingly.
Background
The Appellant, Farmers Choice Limited, filed its appeal, memorandum of appeal, statement of facts, objection decision and supporting documents at the Tribunal on 12th January 2026 (paragraph 108).
Under Section 15(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, the Commissioner was required to submit its statement of facts within thirty days of service, meaning it ought to have filed by 11th February 2026 (paragraph 111).
The Commissioner did not file within that period. At a mention on 23rd April 2026, its representative stated that the statement of facts had been filed and served, and the Appellant's tax agent gave verbal consent to regularisation out of time (paragraphs 5 to 6). The Appellant later averred that a search of the Tribunal's electronic portal after the mention showed zero documents uploaded at that time, save for the Appellant's own filing dated 12th January 2026 (paragraph 42).
The Commissioner stated that on 24th April 2026 it discovered a bounced email that had prevented instructions reaching the process server, and it filed the statement of facts dated 15th April 2026 on that date (paragraph 7). The Appellant withdrew its earlier verbal consent by letter (paragraph 8, paragraph 51).
The Commissioner filed the Notice of Motion and Certificate of Urgency on 4th May 2026, being 112 days after service of the appeal (paragraphs 109, 111).
Core dispute
The core dispute was whether the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes should be granted leave to file and serve its statement of facts out of time, and whether the statement of facts dated 15th April 2026 and filed on 24th April 2026 should be deemed properly on record.
The Commissioner argued that the delay was neither prolonged nor inordinate, that it was caused by bona fide administrative oversight and a technical email failure, that it had a meritorious defence, that the Appellant would suffer no prejudice, and that Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution required the matter to be heard on its merits rather than dismissed on technicalities.
The Appellant argued that the Commissioner's representative had made a material misrepresentation to the Tribunal on 23rd April 2026 by asserting the statement of facts was already filed and on record when it was not, that any consent given was conditional and void ab initio once the representation proved false, that the Commissioner had shown no reasonable explanation for a delay of over three and a half months, that it would suffer prejudice including wasted costs and procedural uncertainty, and that the Supporting Affidavit was procedurally irregular as it was sworn by the same advocate on record.
Court findings
The Tribunal identified the issue for determination as whether the Respondent/Applicant had met the threshold for extension of time to submit and serve its statement of facts, applying the test under Section 15(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, namely whether the delay was not inordinate, or whether there was other reasonable cause preventing timely submission (paragraphs 104 to 107).
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner ought to have submitted its statement of facts by 11th February 2026, and that the Notice of Motion seeking leave to file out of time was filed on 4th May 2026, being one hundred and twelve (112) days from the date of service of the Appeal (paragraphs 110 to 111).
The Tribunal found that 112 days was not an inordinate delay and that the application had been brought without undue delay (paragraph 112). Having found the delay not inordinate, the Tribunal held it was unnecessary to consider the second limb of the test, namely other reasonable cause (paragraph 113).
The Tribunal further found that the Appellant had not demonstrated it would suffer irreparable loss if the application were allowed, and that the Appellant would still be able to argue its case and have recourse to justice. The Tribunal therefore found that the Appellant would not suffer prejudice if the extension of time were granted (paragraph 114).
Outcome
The Tribunal found the application merited and made the following orders: the Notice of Motion Application dated and filed on 4th May 2026 was allowed; the Respondent/Applicant was granted leave to submit its statement of facts out of time; the Respondent/Applicant's statement of facts dated 15th April 2026 and filed on 24th April 2026 was deemed duly filed and served; and there was no order as to costs (paragraph 115).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes should be granted leave to file its statement of facts out of time under Section 15(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.
- Whether the delay of 112 days from service of the appeal to the filing of the application was inordinate.
- Whether the Appellant would suffer prejudice if the extension of time were granted.
- Whether the Commissioner's representative made a material misrepresentation to the Tribunal on 23rd April 2026 regarding the filing status of the statement of facts.
- Whether Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution required the matter to be determined on its merits rather than on procedural technicalities.
- Whether the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the advocate on record for the Commissioner was procedurally irregular.