Judgment summary
This is a ruling of the Tax Appeals Tribunal at Nairobi on a Notice of Motion by Imprimerie Nationale Kenya Limited dated 29th April 2026 and filed on 30th April 2026. The Applicant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts against the Respondent's Objection decision dated 29th October 2025, together with orders restraining enforcement and recovery pending the intended appeal.
The Application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Charles Gathuto. The Appellant did not file written submissions and the Respondent did not file a response.
The Tribunal applied the test under Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and the criteria drawn from prior authorities, and found that the Appellant had not established reasonable cause for the delay. The Application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Background
On 2nd October 2024, the Respondent issued an Additional Corporate Income Tax Assessment for the year of income 2020 (Assessment No. KRA202459720861), assessing principal tax of KES 5,979,173.75, penalties of KES 90,694.29, and interest of KES 761,832.02, amounting to a total of KES 6,831,700.06. The assessment sought to disallow business expenses amounting to KES 30,568,254, which the Appellant contends were incurred wholly and exclusively in the production of income.
The Appellant states that the assessment notice was erroneously served via iTax to the email address of a former director who had exited the organisation prior to issuance of the assessment, and consequently did not come to the Appellant's attention within the statutory timelines. The Appellant states it only became aware of the assessment during a routine audit conducted by its external auditors, by which time the statutory objection period had lapsed.
Upon discovery, the Appellant engaged the Respondent through its appointed tax agents and applied for leave to lodge a late objection, which leave was granted. Pursuant to that leave, the Appellant lodged a Notice of Objection on 22nd August 2025 and engaged with the Respondent's Independent Review of Objections (IRO) Unit. The Respondent issued an Objection decision dated 29th October 2025, communicated the same date, which partially allowed the objection.
The delay giving rise to the Application relates to the filing of an appeal before the Tribunal following the Objection decision. The Appellant states that the issues in the intended appeal arise from transactions linked to a sensitive contractual arrangement between the Appellant's parent company and the Government of Kenya, and that the Appellant, being part of a multinational group with management based in France, required group-level approvals, retrieval of historical documentation held outside Kenya, and internal alignment before pursuing an appeal. The Appellant characterised the resultant delay of approximately 125 days as reasonable and sufficiently explained.
Core dispute
The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the Appellant had demonstrated a reasonable cause, within the meaning of Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, for its failure to file a Notice of Appeal within the statutory thirty-day period following the Objection decision of 29th October 2025.
The Appellant argued that the delay of approximately 125 days arose from the need to validate a sensitive Government-related contractual arrangement and to obtain group-level approvals and documentation from its multinational parent based in France, and that this delay was not due to indolence or wilful inaction.
The Respondent did not file any response to the Application.
Court findings
The Tribunal noted that Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act permits an extension of time owing to absence from Kenya, sickness, or other reasonable cause that prevented the applicant from giving notice of appeal within the specified period, and that this power is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously.
The Tribunal applied the criteria drawn from John Kuria v Kelen Wahito, Nairobi Civil Application Nai 19 of 1983, as referred to in Wasike v Swala [1984] KLR 591 and Sammy Mwangi Kiriethe & 2 others v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd, together with Section 13 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act: whether there is reasonable cause for the delay, whether the appeal is merited, whether the application for extension has been brought without undue delay, and whether the Respondent would suffer prejudice.
The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to produce documentary evidence supporting its assertions that delayed group-level approvals, retrieval of historical documentation held outside Kenya, and internal alignment on legal, regulatory and commercial implications caused the delay in filing the intended appeal. The Tribunal noted there was no proof of whether these purported actions actually occurred, nor any evidence of their timeframes relative to the statutory deadline.
Having found no demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay under the first test, the Tribunal held it unnecessary to consider the remaining tests, as they had been rendered moot.
Outcome
The Tribunal found the Application unmeritorious. The Notice of Motion Application dated 29th April 2026 and filed on 30th April 2026 was dismissed. No order was made as to costs.
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Appellant established reasonable cause for the delay of approximately 125 days in filing its Notice of Appeal against the Objection decision of 29th October 2025.
- Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act to extend time for filing the appeal.
- Whether the Appellant provided documentary evidence to substantiate its claims of delayed multinational group-level approvals and retrieval of historical documentation.
- Whether it was necessary to consider the remaining criteria (merit of the appeal, undue delay in bringing the application, and prejudice to the Respondent) once reasonable cause was not established.