Judgment summary
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 8th July 2026 by which the Applicant sought an extension of time to file its appeal against the Respondent's Objection decision dated 11th March 2024.
The Tribunal considered the Application, the Supporting Affidavit of Morowa Juma Gafo, and the Applicant's written submissions. It found that the Applicant had not laid a sufficient basis under Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (Cap. 469A) to justify the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to extend time.
The Tribunal dismissed the Application, with each party to bear its own costs.
Background
The Applicant, Sabials Contractors and Supplies Limited, filed a Notice of Motion dated 8th July 2026, under Certificate of Urgency, supported by an Affidavit of Morowa Juma Gafo (para 1).
The Application sought an extension of time within which to file an appeal against the Respondent's Objection decision dated 11th March 2024 (para 1).
The Applicant explained the delay by reference to the illness of its director, who was responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs, and to the Applicant having lost contact with its former tax agents (para 2).
The Applicant contended that it had an arguable appeal and that the interests of justice required the dispute to be determined on its merits (para 3).
Core dispute
The issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause, within the meaning of Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, to warrant the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to extend time for filing the appeal (para 6).
The Respondent did not file a Replying Affidavit, and its material on record was directed at the merits of the underlying tax dispute, which the Tribunal noted were not for determination in this Application (para 5).
Court findings
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant's written submissions principally addressed the merits and arguability of the intended appeal, and did not materially add to the explanation for the delay or provide further evidence supporting the circumstances relied upon (para 4).
The Tribunal referred to Section 13(3) and 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (Cap. 469A), which permit extension of time owing to absence from Kenya, sickness, or other reasonable cause (para 7).
Citing Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR, the Tribunal reiterated that extension of time is not a right but an equitable remedy exercised at the discretion of the court, that the burden lies on the party seeking the extension to lay a sufficient basis, that the reason for delay must be explained to the satisfaction of the court, and that discretion is exercised on a case-by-case basis (para 8).
The Applicant relied on the illness of its director, supported by a medical document dated 22nd October 2024 from Dr Ben's Stanford Medical Centre, recording a diagnosis of "dengue fever and uncomplicated diabetes mellitus 2" and recommending fourteen (14) days of total bed rest (paras 9-10).
The Tribunal accepted that sickness is expressly contemplated under Section 13(4) as a circumstance capable of constituting reasonable cause, but found that the medical evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the illness prevented the Applicant from taking the requisite steps for the long period of delay, nor that the director remained incapacitated for that period (para 11).
On this basis, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not met the threshold required under Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act for the exercise of its discretion to extend time (para 12).
Outcome
The Tribunal dismissed the Application for extension of time (para 13(i)).
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs (para 13(ii)).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Applicant demonstrated sufficient cause under Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act to justify an extension of time to file the appeal
- Whether the illness of the Applicant's director constituted reasonable cause for the delay
- Whether the medical evidence produced sufficiently proved incapacitation for the full period of delay
- Whether extension of time is a matter of right or an equitable remedy subject to the Tribunal's discretion
- Whether loss of contact with former tax agents contributed to a valid explanation for the delay