https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/242

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: TATC/E976/2025 AERO-MARINE CARGO SERVICES LIMITED 1st Appellant - Versus - Kenya Revenue Authority 1st Respondent JUDGMENT # BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is a company incorporated in Kenya with its registered offices in Mombasa and that its principal activity is the provision of import and cargo handling services. 2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, CAP 469 of Kenya’s Laws (hereinafter “the Act”). Under Section 5 (1) of the Act, the Kenya Revenue Authority is an agency of the Government for the collection and receipt of all tax revenue. Further, under Section 5(2) of the Act with respect to the performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Authority is mandated to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Part 1 and 2 of the First Schedule to the Act for the purposes of assessing, collecting and accounting for all revenues in accordance with those laws. 3. The Respondent conducted a returns verification exercise into the Appellant’s tax affairs for purposes of establishing whether the Appellant declared all income and paid the corresponding taxes subjected the undeclared sales to additional VAT amounting to Kshs 3,825,534.40 and Income Tax amounting to Kshs 10,381,979.60 through assessment notices dated 28 May 2020 and 16 October 2023 respectively 4. The Appellant stated that the Respondent’s assessments relate to various tax periods including income tax for 2015, 2019, 2020, and 2021, as well as VAT for July 2019 and December 2019, with objected amounts ranging from Kshs 40,474.24 to Kshs 3,943,350.00, all of which were disallowed in full, resulting in a total purported tax liability of Kshs 14,204,514.00. 5. The Appellant lodged a late objection 28 June 2025 and 2 July 2025 6. The Respondent rejected the objection application through rejection notices issued on 10 July 2025 and 15 July 2023 respectively 7. Dissatisfied with the Respondent’s decisions on the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated and filed 9th September 2025 # THE APPEAL 1. The Appellant lodged its Memorandum of appeal dated 23rd August, 2025 and filed 8th September, 2025 raising the following grounds of appeal; 1. THAT it is in the interest of justice that the Appeal be allowed as the Appellant's objection raises key issues that will aid this Tribunal effectively determine the issues in dispute. pursuant to Rule 3 (2) and 4 (1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Rules (2015), the Appellant attaches: 1. A copy of the Statement of Facts. 2. Copies of the Respondent's decisions dated 23rd November 2023, 10th July 2025 and 15th July 2025 (annexed hereto and marked AMCS IV). 3. A copy of the Notice of Appeal (Copy of Notice annexed and marked AMCS V). 1. The appellant captioned above further avers that: 4. The Respondent carried out estimated assessments on the Appellant for the years of income 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 subsequently issued assessment notices; KRA202318435707, KRA202009669999, KRA202009669744, KRA202318435825, KRA202318438329, and KRA202318439342 demanding the appellant to pay total a principal tax liability of Ksh 14,204,514. 1. The Appellant's case and appeal through this memorandum is that; 2. The Respondent erred in law by taxing non existing income contrarily to the Section 3 (2) of Income tax at Cap 470 and Section 5 3. of Value added tax act no.35 of 2013. 4. The Respondent erred in law and methods by taxing on assumed income which was not based on any factual information. 1. The Respondent erred in law and facts by demanding tax that are unreasonable and unfair as per article 210 and 201(b) (i), of the Kenya constitution. 2. The Respondent erred in law and fact by demanding tax past statutory return period. 3. That the Respondent actions are contrary to legitimate expectations on the operations of the taxpayer, as per Section 15 of the income tax, and Article 47(1)(2) of the Kenya Constitution 2010. # THE APPELLANT’S CASE 1. The Appellant case was premised on its statement of facts dated 23rd August 2025 and filed on 8th September 2025, The Tribunal directions on the 1st April 2026 for the Appellant to file submissions was not adhered to. 2. The Appellant stated that the dispute arose from assessment order numbers KRA202009669733 and KRA202009669999 relating to VAT for July 2019 and December 2019 respectively, in which the Respondent issued additional VAT assessments amounting to Kshs 3,825,534.40, 3. The Appellant stated that further to the above, the Respondent issued additional income tax assessments through order numbers KRA202318435707, KRA202318435825, KRA202318438329, and KRA202318439342 covering the years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, totaling Kshs 10,381,979.60, 4. The Appellant stated that the Respondent further issued objection decisions through letters dated 10 July 2025 and 15 July 2025 in respect of the income tax assessments for the years 2018 to 2021 amounting to Kshs 10,381,979.60, 5. The Appellant stated that it is aggrieved by the Respondent’s tax decisions contained in the letters dated 23 November 2023, 10 July 2025, and 15 July 2025 and has therefore lodged the present appeal before the Tax Appeals Tribunal. 6. The Appellant stated that the Respondent’s assessments relate to various tax periods including income tax for 2015, 2019, 2020, and 2021, as well as VAT for July 2019 and December 2019, with objected amounts ranging from Kshs 40,474.24 to Kshs 3,943,350.00, all of which were disallowed in full, resulting in a total purported tax liability of Kshs 14,204,514.00. 7. The Appellant stated that contrary to its legitimate expectation, the Respondent issued objection decisions on diverse dates and declined the objections while confirming the assessments in question. 8. The Appellant stated that it has a valid objection with reasonable chances of success and therefore seeks the intervention of the Tribunal. 9. The Appellant stated that it is in the interest of justice that it be granted leave and opportunity to pursue the appeal against the Respondent’s decision. 10. The Appellant stated that it shall, at the hearing of the appeal, rely on both oral and documentary evidence as well as submissions in support of its case. 11. The Appellant stated that it filed a Notice of Appeal in accordance with Section 52 of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 on 13 August 2025 at the Tax Appeals Tribunal in Nairobi, 12. The Appellant stated that by letters dated 23 November 2023, 10 July 2025, and 15 July 2025, the Respondent issued objection decisions relating to VAT assessments for various tax periods, thereby giving rise to the present appeal. 13. The Appellant stated that with the leave of the Tax Appeals Tribunal, make further oral and written submissions on any relevant issues in the Appeal. # Appellant’s Prayers 1. The Appellant Prayed that: 2. This appeal be allowed and the Respondent's decisions dated 23 November 2023, 10th July 2025 and 15th July 2025 be set aside. 3. This Honourable Tribunal be pleased to extend the time within which the Appellant should appeal to the Tax Appeal Tribunal to the objection decisions dated 23rd November 2023. 4. The Respondent objection decision is invalid, incorrect, and unfair and failed to meet the legitimate expectations of the taxpayer as per Section 47 of the Kenya constitution 2010, and article 201(b) (i). 210. 5. Upon determination that the objection decision of the Respondent is invalid, wrong and unreasonable the appellant's objection be upheld and the Respondent's demand and confirmation be quashed entirely. 6. The Respondent's Demand for additional Taxes and Confirmation of Estimated Assessment is stuck out entirely. 7. That Respondent's Actions be declared arbitrary, capricious, subjective, unfair and contrary to the fair administration of justice and to the legitimate expectations of the taxpayer. 8. That the Respondent and its agents be estopped from demanding or taking further action or steps to ensure recovery of the alleged principal tax, penalties and Interests. 9. Cost of the appeal and, 10. Any other remedies that this tribunal may determine and deem necessary. # THE RESPONDENT’S CASE 1. In response to the appeal, the Respondent filed its Statement of facts dated 26th September 2025 and filed on 9 th March 2026 together with submissions deemed properly on record by the Tribunal on the date of the hearing on 1st April 2026 2. The Respondent stated that it conducted a returns verification exercise into the Appellant’s tax affairs for purposes of establishing whether the Appellant declared all income and paid the corresponding taxes due. 1. The Respondent stated that during the exercise it requested the Appellant to provide records for review and upon examination of the records it established that the Appellant had not declared all sales made as required under the law. 2. The Respondent stated that it subsequently subjected the undeclared sales to additional VAT amounting to Kshs 3,825,534.40 and Income Tax amounting to Kshs 10,381,979.60 through assessment notices dated 28 May 2020 and 16 October 2023 respectively 3. The Respondent stated that the Appellant lodged a late objection almost two years out of time on 28 June 2025 and 2 July 2025 without seeking leave to file the objection out of time 4. The Respondent stated that it requested the Appellant via email dated 2 July 2025 to provide supporting documents explaining the reason for the late objection by 8 July 2025 and 11 July 2025 respectively, through email correspondence 5. The Respondent stated that the Appellant failed to provide the requested information, leaving it with no option but to reject the objection application through rejection notices issued on 10 July 2025 and 15 July 2023 respectively 6. The Respondent stated that being dissatisfied with the objection decision, the Appellant filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Respondent stated that the dispute relates to additional Income Tax and VAT assessments arising from the Appellant’s tax affairs. 8. The Respondent stated that it conducted a returns verification exercise aimed at establishing whether the Appellant declared all income and paid taxes due, and that the Appellant failed to declare all sales made as required under the law. 9. The Respondent stated that it consequently subjected undeclared sales to VAT of Kshs 3,825,534.40 and Income Tax of Kshs 10,381,979.60. 10. The Respondent stated that the Appellant lodged a late objection almost two years out of time on 28 June 2025 and 2 July 2025 without an application for extension of time 11. The Respondent stated that the Appellant was requested via email dated 2 July 2025 to submit supporting documents by 8 July 2025 and 11 July 2025 respectively 1. The Respondent stated that the Appellant failed to provide the required information, and therefore the objection application was rejected through notices issued on 10 July 2023 and 15 July 2023. 2. The Respondent stated that in the present appeal the Appellant has not demonstrated that it provided any evidence to support its late objection before the Tribunal. 3. The Respondent stated that the Appellant has not attached any email correspondence or stamped letter to show that it responded to the Respondent’s email dated 2 July 2025. 4. the Respondent stated that the Appellant bore the duty to justify its application for leave to lodge an objection out of time. 5. The The Respondent stated that the Appellant in fact received the pre- assessment notice and acknowledged the same vide email dated 26 September 2023 6. The Respondent stated that the Appellant has both Income Tax and VAT obligations requiring annual and monthly returns respectively, and therefore could not validly claim non-receipt of assessments issued through the iTax system 7. The the Respondent stated that the Appellant’s reasons for filing the late objection were not substantiated and did not meet the threshold under Section 51(7) of the Tax Procedures Act, and therefore the objection was properly rejected. 8. The Respondent stated that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the rejection notice issued by the Respondent was improper. 9. The Respondent stated that the Appellant has a tendency of only reacting to enforcement measures such as agency notices rather than complying proactively with tax obligations. 10. The Respondent stated that even the medical records relied upon by the Appellant in support of its application do not assist its case as they relate to the year 2022 whereas the assessments in dispute relate to 2023. 11. The Respondent stated that the burden lies on the Appellant to demonstrate that the rejection notice was improper, which burden has not been discharged. 12. The Respondent stated that all its actions were undertaken in accordance with the Tax Procedures Act, 2015, the Income Tax Act, the VAT Act, and the relevant regulations. 1. The Respondent stated that the Appellant was accorded an opportunity to respond to audit findings and to object to the assessments in line with due process. 2. The Respondent stated that the tax assessments issued were properly founded in fact and law and that the rejection notices were fair, reasonable, and compliant with statutory provisions. 3. In its submissions, the Respondent opposed the Appeal as contained in the Appellant’s Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts and relied on its Statement of Facts dated 26th September 2025 submissions dated 9th March 2026 and filed on 10th March 2026 together with all annexures thereto and the submissions filed. 4. The Respondent submitted that the Appeal is premised on a single overarching issue for determination, namely whether the Appeal contravenes Section 56(3) of the Tax Procedures Act and whether the Respondent erred in rejecting the Appellant’s application to lodge an objection out of time pursuant to Section 51(7) of the Tax Procedures Act. 5. The Respondent submitted that Section 56(3) of the Tax Procedures Act is couched in mandatory terms requiring that a taxpayer in an appeal before the Tribunal is restricted to the grounds raised in the objection unless leave is granted to introduce new grounds. 6. The Respondent submitted that the provision expressly limits an appellant from introducing new issues at the appellate stage and that the Appellant herein has introduced new grounds not contained in the objection or objection decision. 7. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s appeal improperly introduces substantive tax dispute issues that were never part of the objection process and no leave was sought from the Tribunal to expand the grounds. 8. The Respondent submitted that the proper subject of appeal ought to have been the rejection of the application to lodge objection out of time rather than introducing new substantive tax issues at this stage. 9. The Respondent submitted that failure to obtain leave before introducing new grounds amounts to a direct breach of Section 56(3) of the Tax Procedures Act and offends the statutory framework governing tax appeals. 10. The Respondent submitted reliance on the decision in Equity Group Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Civil Appeal E069 & E025 of 2020) where the Court emphasized that statutory provisions using the word “shall” are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. 1. The Respondent submitted that the Court in the said decision further held that in tax matters there is no room for intendment, implication or equity and that tax statutes must be strictly interpreted. 2. The Respondent submitted that the appealable decision in this matter is strictly the objection decision and not any fresh issues that were never considered by the Commissioner. 3. The Respondent submitted that by introducing new grounds the Appellant is effectively restarting the objection process at the appellate stage thereby bypassing the statutory procedure. 4. The Respondent submitted that this approach improperly invites the Tribunal to assume the role of the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes by determining issues not first subjected to administrative determination. 5. The Respondent submitted reliance on **Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others** where the Court held that documents filed without leave where required are a nullity in law. 1. The Respondent submitted that similarly, grounds of appeal introduced without leave are legally incompetent and render the appeal fatally defective. 2. The Respondent submitted that grounds of appeal constitute the foundation of the appeal and without valid grounds the entire appeal collapses in law. 3. The Respondent submitted that the violation of Section 56(3) of the Tax Procedures Act is not a mere procedural defect but a substantive statutory breach that cannot be cured under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. 4. The Respondent submitted that having addressed the first issue, the Respondent proceeds to the second issue concerning the rejection of the Appellant’s application to lodge objection out of time under Section 51(7) of the Tax Procedures Act. 5. The Respondent submitted that the Respondent conducted a returns verification exercise on the Appellant’s tax affairs to establish whether all income had been declared and taxes duly paid. 6. The Respondent submitted that upon review of the Appellant’s records it was established that the Appellant had not declared all sales as required by law. 7. The Respondent submitted that consequently VAT amounting to Kshs. 3,825,534.40 and Income Tax amounting to Kshs. 10,381,979.60 were assessed through notices dated 28th May 2020 and 16th October 2023. 1. The Respondent submitted that under Section 51(2) of the Tax Procedures Act the Appellant was required to lodge a notice of objection within thirty days of notification. 2. The Respondent submitted that instead of complying with the statutory timeline the Appellant lodged its objection nearly two years late through correspondence dated 28th June 2025 and 2nd July 2025. 3. The Respondent submitted that the delay is not in dispute and is admitted on record. 4. The Respondent submitted that Section 51(7) of the Tax Procedures Act allows extension of time only where reasonable cause such as absence from Kenya, sickness or other sufficient cause is demonstrated. 5. The Respondent submitted that the law further requires that the taxpayer must not have unreasonably delayed in lodging the objection and must provide supporting material. 6. The Respondent submitted that although an application was made via iTax, the Appellant failed to attach supporting documentation explaining the delay. 7. The Respondent submitted that the Respondent even requested further documentation through email dated 2nd July 2025 but the Appellant failed to provide justification. 8. The Respondent submitted that the explanation provided by the Appellant was false as both pre-assessment and assessment notices were duly served via the email registered on iTax and acknowledged. 9. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant continued engaging through the same email channel even after issuance of the assessment notices. 10. The Respondent submitted that in any event the assessment was also accessible through the iTax portal to which the Appellant had full access. 11. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is legally obligated to file returns regularly and therefore cannot claim ignorance of the assessment for a period spanning two years. 12. The Respondent submitted that discretion under Section 51(7) of the Tax Procedures Act cannot be exercised in a vacuum but must be based on evidence provided by the taxpayer. 13. The Respondent submitted that where no evidence is provided the Commissioner cannot speculate or fabricate reasons to justify extension of time. 14. The Respondent submitted reliance on **Republic v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes ex parte Mayfair Insurance Company Limited** where the Court held that compliance with statutory timelines under tax law is mandatory. 1. The Respondent submitted reliance on **Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume** where the Court held that where a statute provides a procedure that procedure must be strictly followed. 1. The Respondent submitted that the objection procedure under Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act is the exclusive statutory mechanism for challenging tax assessments. 2. The Respondent submitted that the statutory scheme under the Act is sequential beginning with assessment, then objection, objection decision and finally appeal. 3. The Respondent submitted that in the absence of a valid objection there can be no valid objection decision capable of being appealed. 4. The Respondent submitted that what was issued by the Respondent was a rejection of an application to lodge objection out of time and not an objection decision on merits. 5. The Respondent submitted reliance on **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited** where the Court emphasized strict interpretation of tax statutes. 1. The Respondent submitted that allowing a taxpayer to circumvent statutory timelines would amount to rewriting the law and defeating legislative intent. 2. The Respondent submitted that tax administration requires certainty, finality and strict adherence to statutory timelines. 3. The Respondent submitted that failure to comply with Section 51(2) and 51(7) of the Tax Procedures Act renders the assessment valid and enforceable. 4. The Respondent submitted reliance on **Eldo-Rosta Construction Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes** where the Tribunal held that late objections without supporting evidence are invalid in law. 1. The Respondent submitted that mere allegations without evidence cannot satisfy the burden required under tax law and do not constitute proof. 2. The Respondent submitted that once a taxpayer fails to lodge a valid objection under Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act the assessment is deemed confirmed by operation of law. 3. The Respondent submitted reliance on **Republic v Kenya Revenue** **Authority ex parte Style Industries Limited** where the Court held that statutory timelines are substantive and not mere technicalities. 1. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant failed to follow the prescribed statutory mechanism and cannot seek equitable relief from the Tribunal. 2. The Respondent submitted that even if the objection were properly before the Tribunal, the burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act lies squarely on the Appellant. 3. The Respondent submitted that tax assessments are presumed correct unless the taxpayer produces evidence to the contrary. 4. The Respondent submitted reliance on **Kenya Revenue Authority v Maluki Kitili Mwendwa** where the Court held that taxpayers are best placed to provide records within their control. 1. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence challenging the assessment. 2. The Respondent submitted reliance on **Alfred Kioko Muteti v Timothy Miheso & another** where the Court held that pleadings without evidence cannot discharge the burden of proof. 1. The Respondent submitted that in the absence of compliance with statutory requirements and evidentiary support, the assessment remains valid and undisturbed. 2. The Respondent submitted that the Tribunal should therefore uphold the Respondent’s decision, confirm the assessed taxes amounting to Kshs. 14,204,514, and dismiss the Appeal with costs. # Respondent’s Prayer’s 1. The Respondent prayed that the Tribunal should 2. Dismiss the appeal in its entirety 3. Uphold the tax assessments as confirmed in the rejection notices, and 4. Order the Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal. # ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 1. The Tribunal having carefully evaluated parties’ pleadings it is of the respectful view that the issues that call for its determination as to; # Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the appeal; and 1. **whether the rejection of the late objection was justified ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 2. Having identified the issues for determination, the Tribunal proceeds to analyse the same as hereunder; # (a) Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Appeal 1. The Tribunal has reviewed the context of the dispute which arose following a returns verification exercise conducted by the Respondent into the Appellant’s tax affairs, aimed at establishing whether the Appellant had declared all income and discharged the corresponding tax obligations. 2. Upon review of records and information obtained during the exercise, the Respondent established that the Appellant had failed to declare all sales made during the relevant tax periods. Consequently, the Respondent issued assessment notices dated 28th May 2020 and 16th October 2023, assessing VAT amounting to Kshs. 3,825,534.40 and Income Tax amounting to Kshs. 10,381,979.60 respectively. 3. In accordance with Section 51(2) of the Tax Procedures Act, the Appellant was required to lodge a Notice of objection within thirty (30) days of being notified of the assessments; however, the Appellant did not comply with this statutory timeline and only attempted to lodge an objection nearly two years later through correspondence dated 28th June 2025 and 2nd July 2025. 4. Following the delayed objection, the Appellant sought leave to lodge the objection out of time under Section 51(7) of the Tax Procedures Act, which allows extension of time upon demonstration of reasonable cause and absence of unreasonable delay. 5. The Respondent, by email dated 2nd July 2025, requested supporting documentation to justify the delay, but the Appellant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation or evidence. Subsequently, the Respondent rejected the application through decisions dated 10th July 2025 and 15th July 2025 on the basis of non-compliance with statutory requirements. The question then is whether the said decision is an appealable decision, if not, whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 6. A Taxpayer has a statutory duty to object to the assessment within thirty days. In particular, Section 51(2) of the TPA provides as follows: 7. *A taxpayer who disputes a tax decision may lodge a notice of objection to the decision, in writing, with the Commissioner within thirty* *days of being notified of the decision.* 1. Considering the timelines under Section 51(2) the TPA, it was obvious that the taxpayer delayed to object to the assessment. 2. Whereas Section 51(2) of the TPA mandates the taxpayers to file an objection within 30 days of being notified of the assessment, the TPA also foresees scenarios where taxpayers may delay to file objection against the assessments. As a result, Section 51(6) of TPA provides: *A taxpayer may apply in writing to the Commissioner for an extension of time to lodge a notice of objection.* 1. When filing the application for extension of time under Section 51(6) of TPA, Section 51(7) of TPA provides the grounds that the taxpayer must prove for the application to be allowed. The Taxpayer only needs to prove any one of them. In this regard, Section 51(7) of the TPA provides as follows: 2. *The Commissioner shall consider and may allow an application under Subsection* [*(6)*](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2015/29/eng%402025-07-01) *if—* 1. *the taxpayer was prevented from lodging the notice of objection within the period specified in Subsection* [*(2)*](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2015/29/eng%402025-07-01) *because of an absence from Kenya, sickness or other reasonable cause; and* 2. *the taxpayer did not unreasonably delay in lodging the notice of objection*. 3. The Appellant made an application seeking leave from the Respondent to object to the assessment out of time but the Respondent rejected the application on the basis that the Appellant did not provide the supporting documentation. 4. This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to look into the Respondent’s decisions made under Section 51(7) of the TPA. The High Court in **Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement v Vyas t/a Rocon Enterprises (Income Tax** **Appeal E144 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16027 (KLR)** stated that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain decisions under Section 51(7) of the TPA for the reason that the decision is not an appealable decision. 1. Taking into account that the Respondent did not allow the Appellant to file an objection out of time, then, the Appellant did not object to the assessment. If an objection to assessment was not filed, this appeal cannot arise therefore, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal cannot be invoked. 2. Section 51(1) of TPA sheds more light on this issue. It provides as follows: ***51. Objection to tax decision*** *(1) A taxpayer who wishes to dispute a tax decision* ***shall first lodge an objection*** *against that tax decision under this Section* ***before proceeding under any other written law****.* 1. Section 51(1) of the TPA speaks to the doctrine of exhaustion wherein the taxpayer has to exhaust the available remedies before approaching this Tribunal. It also speaks to what the Tribunal has stated above that if an objection to assessment was not filed, an appeal cannot arise therefore, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal cannot be invoked successfully. 2. In the case of ***Samwel Kamau & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank & Others [Application No. 2 of 2011] 92012 KESC (KLR)*** the Supreme Court emphasised that a court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. 3. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal flows from the tax law statutes and where tax laws such as Section 51(1) of TPA provides that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction where the taxpayer has not objected to the assessment, the Tribunal cannot proceed. 4. The Tribunal is guided by the findings of Nyarangi J in the *locus classicus* case of ***Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v Caltex Oil (K) Limited [1989] eKLR*** where the Court observed that, jurisdiction is everything without it, a court must down its tools. Consequently, the Tribunal can only strike out the appeal. 5. Having established that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the Appeal, the Appeal is hereby ripe for striking out. 6. Considering the foregoing findings, analysis is of the remaining issue is hereby rendered moot. # FINAL DECISION 1. The upshot to the foregoing is that the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal is incompetent and makes the following Orders: 2. The Appeal be and is hereby struck out and; 3. Each party to bear its own cost. 4. It is so Ordered. # DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2026. SIGNED BY/FOR: **★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★** **HON. ROBERT MUGAMBI MUTUMA (CHAIRPERSON) HON. EUNICE NJERI NGANGA HON. BONIFACE KIBIY TERER DOMINIC KIPKEMOI RONO HON. BILLY GRAHAM OKUMU MIJUNGU** Tax Appeals Tribunal Tribunal Date: 2026-06-03 16:16:56