https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10024

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **ITA NO. E131 OF 2025** **COMMISSIONER OF LEGAL SERVICES & BOARD** **CO-ORDINATION.........………………………………………………...APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **KENYA ROADS BOARD ………………………..………………….....RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) at Nairobi dated 2.5.2025 in **TAT Appeal No. E460 of 2024 Kenya Roads Board v Commissioner of Legal Services and Board Coordination)**. 2. Aggrieved, the appellant instituted this appeal through a memorandum of appeal dated 5.6.2025, on the following grounds: - 3. **The Tribunal erred in law and fact by holding that the appellant erred in assessing the respondent beyond the five-year statutory timeline, a grave misapprehension of the law and therefore arriving at an erroneous conclusion.** 4. **The Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act and as a result arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the Respondent’s interest income earned from various banks was exempt from tax.** 5. **The Tribunal erred in law by shifting the burden of proof to the appellant and in finding that the appellant had failed to adduce before the Tribunal any evidentiary evidence why it sought to assess the respondent beyond the time provided for in law.** 6. **The Tribunal erred in law by sitting as an objection and/or procedure reviewer to consider the probative value of the documents filed and/or the administrative procedure in relation to issuance of PIN registration in contravention of the provisions of Section 10, 12(2), 14 & 56(3) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 and therefore arriving at an erroneous conclusion.** 7. **The Tribunal erred in law and in fact in failing to dispose of all the questions that were presented by the parties for determination and has left certain issues unresolved.** **Response** 1. In opposition to the appeal, the respondent filed its statement of facts dated 26.9.2025. **Background** 1. The respondent, **Kenya Roads Board** is a State Agency established pursuant to the provisions of the **Kenya Roads Board Act, CAP 408A (the** **KRB Act)**. Its core function is to coordinate the development, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the road network in Kenya, primarily through the management of the **Road Maintenance Levy Fund**. 2. All proceeds from the **Road Maintenance Levy Fund** are paid into the **Kenya Roads Board Fund** which vests in the Board as per section 31 of the KRB Act. 3. The appellant audited the respondent’s tax affairs for 2015 to 2022 and issued the notice of assessment dated 4.1.2024 demanding additional principal income tax of Kshs. 4,115,810,458 and penalties and interest of Kshs. 1,234,070,249. 4. The respondent issued its notice of objection on 19.1.2024 on grounds that the tax demand was excessive, incorrect, unfair and prejudicial. 5. The appellant issued its objection decision of 18.3.2024 partially amending the assessment to Kshs. 2,905,170,268 inclusive of penalties and interest. Notably, it revised the principal tax downward to Kshs. 1,710,095,133. 6. Dissatisfied, the respondent appealed to the Tribunal through a memorandum of appeal dated 30.4.2024 challenging the appellant’s objection decision in entirety. 7. The respondent challenged the appellant’s issuance of assessments out of the statutory time limit of 5 years. It contended that the appellant failed to consider that on 25.10.2019 and 13.11.2019 the respondent remitted Kshs. 2,223,753,027 and Kshs. 608,471,728 to the Consolidated fund under the guidance of the National Treasury. 8. The respondent also faulted the appellant for failure to appreciate that it is mandated under **section 33 of the Kenya Roads Board Act** to invest funds not readily required in interest earning accounts. That such interest is ploughed back to be deployed for road maintained, not income generated from trade subject to tax. 9. The respondent further faulted the appellant for ignoring that it had two PINs and only relied on one PIN for its assessment yet it is a single legal person for tax purposes and should be treated as such. **Directions of the court** 1. The appeal was canvassed through written submissions. The appellant and the respondent filed written submissions dated 12.11.2025 and 11.12.2025 respectively. **Appellant’s submissions** 1. The appellant prayed that its appeal be allowed; that the Tribunal’s judgment of 2.5.2025 be set aside and the objection decision dated 18.3.2025 be upheld and that the respondent be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal. 2. The submissions are considered in great depth in the analysis. 3. The appellant relied on: - 4. **Cape Brandy Syndicate v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 KB 64** 5. **National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2016] eKLR** 6. **Kenya Ports Authority v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E054 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 14180 (KLR)** 7. **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Pevans Africa Ltd (Tax Appeal E048 of 2020 & Income Tax Appeal E079 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEHC 11879 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (12 August 2022) (Judgment) - Tax Appeal E048 of 2020 & Income Tax Appeal E079 of 2020 (Consolidated)** 8. **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Pevans East Africa Limited & 6 others (Tax Appeal E003 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 10392** 9. **M-Kopa LLC (c/o M-Kopa Kenya Limited) v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 65 of 2023)** 10. **Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority ex parte Stanley Mombo Amuti [2018] eKLR** 11. **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd [2020] eKLR** **Respondent’s submissions** 1. The respondent urged the court to uphold the Tribunal’s judgment of 2.5.2025 and to dismiss the appellant’s appeal and to order the appellant to pay the costs of the appellant’s stay application and the appeal. 2. The submissions are considered in great depth in the analysis. 3. The respondent relied on: - 4. **Gujarat Municipal Finance Board v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [1996] 221 ITR 317 (Guj)** 5. **Commissioner of Income Tax v Bokaro Steel Ltd (1999) 236 ITR 315** 6. **HLL Biotech Ltd v CIT (2024)** 7. **Commissioner for Domestic Taxes v Ralph Bunche Suites Ltd, Income Tax Appeal E058 of 2020** 8. **Nanikant Ambalal Mody v Commissioner of Income-Tax 1967 AIR 193** 9. **Commissioner of Investigation & Enforcement v Asea Brown Boveri (Abb) Ltd [2025] KEHC 2798 (KLR)** 10. **Gachuhi & another v Evangelical Mission for Africa & another; Law Society of Kenya (Interested Party) (Civil Appeal 159 of 2015) [2023] KECA 51 (KLR)** **Analysis and Determination** **Duty of court** 1. In such an appeal the court’s mandate is limited to consideration of questions of law. **Section 56 (2) of the Tax Procedures Act** 2. The court’s interaction with the questions of fact is limited to background, context and to considering ***“whether the conclusions of the trial judge are based on the evidence on record or whether they are so perverse that no reasonable tribunal would have arrived at them.”* John Munuve Mati v Returning Officer Mwingi North Constituency & 2 others NRB CA EPA NO. 5 OF 2018 [2018] eKLR** 3. The issues for determination are: - 4. **Whether the assessments were within the 5-year statutory timeframe** 5. **Whether the respondent’s interest income was taxable** 6. **Whether the Tribunal erred in law by holding that interest income earned by the Respondent was not chargeable to tax under Section 3(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act;** 7. **Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that withholding tax on interest was a final tax;** 8. **Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the Respondent was exempt under Regulation 219(3) of the PFM Regulations;** 9. **Whether the Tribunal misapplied Section 33 of the Kenya Roads Board Act; and** 10. **Whether the Tribunal misinterpreted Section 31(4) (b) of the Tax Procedures Act on reassessment timelines.** **Five-year statutory window** 1. The appellant faulted the Tribunal for finding that it required proof of fraud to reassess beyond five (5) years. It asserted that **section 31(4) (b) of the Tax Procedures Act** permits reassessment within five years of self-assessment, or where new material is discovered. 2. The appellant asserted that the assessments raised were therefore within time and compliant with the Tax Procedures Act. It highlighted that the respondent filed the company returns for the year of 2015 to 2020 on 22.3.2022 and declared the interest income as exempted income. In addition, they filed their income tax returns for the 2021 and 2022 on 24.7.2023.That it issued amended assessments on 20.12.2023 and 21.12.2023 and a follow up notice of assessment on 4.1.2024. 3. On the other hand, the respondent asserted that the appellant’s additional assessments for the years of income 2015, 2016, and 2017 were time-barred, having been made outside the five-year statutory limitation period prescribed under **section 31 of the TPA** and were therefore invalid. It challenged the appellant’s contention that the Tribunal misapprehended the law. It claimed that through the argument, the appellant meant to undermine and delay enforcement of the Tribunal’s judgment. 4. The respondent added that it demonstrated that the assessments were for 2015-2017 beyond the 5-year period for which all returns were filed and no objection or action taken and that the burden shifted to the appellant to prove the statutory exceptions for making an assessment beyond the statutory window. 5. **Section 31 (4) of the TPA** provides: - ***“The Commissioner may amend an assessment—*** ***(a) in the case of gross or wilful neglect, evasion, or fraud by, or on behalf of, the taxpayer, at any time; or*** ***(b) in any other case, within five years of—*** ***(i) for a self-assessment, the date that the self-assessment taxpayer submitted the self-assessment return to which the self assessment relates”*** 1. A proper reading of section **31 (4)(b)(i) of the TPA**, discerns that, for a self-assessment, the commissioner may amend an assessment within five years of the date that the taxpayer submitted the self-assessment return to which the self-assessment relates. 2. For a self-assessment, the five-year statutory timeline runs from the date the self-assessment return was filed. **Nakuru Cement Supplies Limited v Commissioner of Investigations and Reinforcement [2022] KEHC 16518 (KLR)**, 3. According to the appellant, the respondent filed the company returns for the years from 2015 to 2020 on **22.3.2022** and declared the interest income as exempted income. In addition, they filed their income tax returns for the 2021 and 2022 on **24.7.2023**.That it issued amended assessments on **20.12.2023** and **21.12.2023** and a follow up notice of assessment on **4.1.2024**. 4. The respondent contended the subject assessments were for 2015-2017 beyond the 5-year period for which all returns were filed and no objection or action taken. However, it neither contested the dates when it filed its self-assessment returns for the period in issue nor the dates that the appellant issued the amended assessments. 5. Thus, I find that the Tribunal erred by holding that the appellant amended the assessments outside the 5-year statutory timeframe. **Interest income** 1. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in law and in interpretation of **Section 3(2) (b)**, as read with **Sections 10, 35 and 39 of the Act**, by failing to correctly appreciate that interest income forms part of taxable income and that withholding tax is not a final tax unless expressly stated by statute. 2. The appellant submitted that interest income is taxable under **section 3 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act**. That all interest income, irrespective of its source, is chargeable to income taxunless exempted under the **First Schedule** or another statute. That interest income is subject to withholding tax under **Section 35 of the Income Tax Act**, generally at 15% for residents and non-residents, unless an exemption applies. 3. The appellant asserted that investment income derived from placing funds in interest-bearing deposits, squarely falls within **Section 3(2) (b)**. It also highlighted that it is not contested that interest income earned by the respondent is additional income earned separate from the **Fuel Maintenance Levy**. That interest income is distinct from the principal government allocation and is taxable. 4. The appellant further asserted that the road maintenance levy is earmarked funds and is not subject to tax. The levy is disbursed to various entities at a determined ratio as provided in the law. 5. The appellant indicated that upon review of the respondent’s audited financial statements it noted that the respondent had not availed the interest income for disbursement with the road maintenance levy but rather retained the entire interest income for its own purpose as evidenced by the instructions that National Treasury gave to it to remit the accumulated funds to the Consolidated Fund. 6. The appellant argued that tax statutes are interpreted strictly and that there is no room for intendment. It also argued that exemptions must be clear and express, not implied. 7. The appellant submitted that only certain forms of interest income are exempt, such as interest from specific government bonds, as listed in the **First Schedule to the Income Tax Act,** or under exemptions granted under **Section 13(2)** by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. 8. The respondent submitted that the interest earned on temporary deposits of the Kenya Roads Board Fund is not revenue income, but a capital accretion to a statutory public fund entrusted for road development under the **KRB Act**. 9. The respondent asserted that the funds held and the interest accrued are both managed by it and are strictly for the development, maintenance and rehabilitation of roads. It also asserted that it does not derive profits from the funds. It merely holds the funds in fiduciary capacity for a public purpose. Any interest earned on fund deposits is an increment to public funds, not a profit. Any interest earned forms part of the funds that are distributed to road agencies towards their objectives. 10. The respondent relied on the inextricable link doctrine to the effect that interest earned is inextricably linked to the purpose of the funds. 11. The respondent questioned the appellant’s proposition that unless a receipt is expressly listed as exempt in the First Schedule, it must be taxable. It contended that the appellant’s reasoning for reversing the statutory order of analysis by leaping to the First Schedule before establishing chargeability. It argued that the First Schedule applies only to receipts that have already satisfied the charging mechanism in Section 3, it cannot create a tax charge where none exists. It contended that non-chargeability and exemption are distinct concepts. **Withholding tax** 1. The appellant faulted the Tribunal for treating withholding tax under **section 35** as a final tax across the board, without addressing whether the payee is resident or non‑resident, or whether the other criteria for finality are met. 2. The respondent did not controvert the fact that withholding tax is not final. However, it contended that the Tribunal’s comments regarding the finality of WHT were not part of its *ratio decidendi*, were not an issue submitted for determination by either party, and therefore constitute *obiter dictum* with no bearing on the validity of the Tribunal’s ultimate finding. 3. The Tribunal held that: - ***“38. The Tribunal observes that it was not disputed that the Appellant earned interest income it even reported in its audited financial statements; what is on trial is whether the interest income earned was subject to tax.*** ***39. The Tribunal notes that whereas tax is chargeable on income as defined under Section 3 (2) of the ITA, KRB receives income from the Exchequer, grants, gifts, donations or endowments pursuant to Section 8 of the KRB Act thus, does not fit the definition of income as couched under Section 3 (2) of the ITA. Additionally, the Tribunal notes that withholding tax on interest is a final tax as provided for under Section 35 of the ITA. 40. Accordingly, the Tribunal having established that the Appellant’s income is not subject to tax finds that the Appellant’s interest income was exempt from tax.”*** 1. There is consensus that the respondent earned interest income and that interest income is taxable under section 3 (2) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The respondent did not controvert the fact that withholding tax is not final. 3. In the respondent’s view, the Tribunals comments regarding the finality of WHT had no bearing on the validity of the Tribunal’s ultimate finding. 4. However, to my mind, the Tribunal’s finding that withholding tax on interest is a final tax led to the finding that the respondent’s interest income was exempt from tax. 5. Therefore, it is my considered view that the Tribunal erred by finding that the Tribunal erred by treating withholding tax under **section 35** as a final tax across the board, without addressing whether the other criteria for finality are met. **Interest income on surplus funds** 1. The appellant submitted that while **section 33 of the Kenya Roads Board Act** allows the respondent to invest surplus funds, it does not confer tax immunity on income arising from such investments. 2. The appellant asserted that **Regulation 219(3)** exempts from income tax regulatory authorities that remit at least 90% of their surplus funds to the **National Treasury**. Therefore, it argued that the respondent, being a roads management body, is not a regulatory authority and does not qualify under this provision. 3. The respondent is established as a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal under section 4 of the **Kenya Roads Board (KRB) Act.** 4. Its object and purpose is to oversee the road network in Kenya and coordinate the maintenance, rehabilitation and development funded by the Fund and to advise the Minister on all related matters. **Section 6** 5. It administers the Road Maintenance Levy Fund established by **section 7 of the Road Maintenance Levy Fund Act, 1993**. 6. **Section 31 (3) of the KRB Act** states that: - ***“(3) All receipts, savings and accruals for the Fund and the balance of the Fund at the end of the financial year shall be retained for the purposes for which the Fund is established.”*** 1. **Section 33 of the KRB Act** states: - ***“33. Investment of funds*** 1. ***The Board may, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance*** 2. ***Invest any of its surplus funds in Government securities.*** 3. ***Place on deposit with any banks quoted on an approved securities exchange in Kenya as it may determine, any moneys not immediately required for the purposes of the Board.”*** 4. **Regulations 211 (4) and 219 of the Public Finance Management (National Government) Regulations, 2015** states: - ***“211 (4) Regulatory agencies shall be categorised as Schedule 3 national government entities.*** ***219. Dividends policy and surplus funds*** ***(1) The National Treasury shall prepare and issue dividend policy guidelines on how national government entities referred to under regulation 211(3) and (4) and remit dividends to the National Treasury.*** ***(2) A regulatory authority established by an Act of Parliament and referred to under regulation 211(4) shall remit to the Collector ninety per centum of its surplus funds reported by the management in the financial statements by the 31st October of each year.*** ***(2A) For the purpose of this regulation, "Collector" means the Commissioner-General appointed under section 11 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act (Cap. 469).*** ***(3)A regulatory authority to which this section applies shall be exempt from the income tax.*** ***(4) The governing body of a public entity listed in Schedule 2 referred to under regulation 211(3), shall formulate an appropriate dividend policy in line with the policy guidelines referred under paragraph (1), and submit to the National Treasury and the respective County Treasury.”*** 1. The respondent is a statutory fund manager, not a regulatory body under **regulation 211 (4)** exempted under **regulation 219**. It is required to invest into government securities or place in deposit with a bank any surplus funds. Any accruals 2. Interest income is taxable under **section 3 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act**. Interest income is subject to withholding tax under **Section 35 of the Income Tax Act**, generally at 15% for residents and non-residents, unless an exemption applies. 3. The Tribunal erred by treating withholding tax under **section 35** as a final tax across the board, without addressing whether the other criteria for finality are met. 4. The Tribunal erred by holding that the appellant amended the assessments outside the 5-year statutory timeframe. 5. Those being my findings, the burden was upon the respondent to prove that the assessments were excessive or incorrect. **Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act** and **section 56 of the Tax Procedure Act** 6. The respondent submitted that the interest earned on temporary deposits of the **Kenya Roads Board Fund** is not revenue income, but a capital accretion to a statutory public fund entrusted for road development under the **KRB Act**. 7. However, the appellant contended that the respondent had not availed the interest income for disbursement with the road maintenance levy but rather retained the entire interest income for its own purpose as evidenced by the instructions that National Treasury gave to it to remit the accumulated funds to the Consolidated Fund. 8. If the interest income was indeed a capital accretion to the Kenya Roads Board Fund and dedicated exclusively to road maintenance, it is difficult to reconcile that position with the respondent's decision to retain the interest separately and subsequently remit it to the Consolidated Fund. 9. Such conduct undermines the respondent's assertion that the interest formed an integral part of the statutory fund earmarked solely for road maintenance. Needless to state the possibility of leakage of public funds handled in such manner. 10. In any event, exemptions from taxation must be conferred in clear and express terms. A taxpayer claiming the benefit of an exemption must demonstrate that the income in question falls squarely within the statutory exemption. The court cannot imply an exemption merely from the intended purpose of the funds. 11. Tax has been referred to as an exaction through law. Thus, tax statutes are interpreted strictly without any room for intendment or implication. In **Republic v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Large Tax Payer’s Office Ex-Parte Barclays Bank of Kenya LTD [2012] eKLR**, the court observedas follows: - ***“...in the oft cited case of Cape Brandy Syndicate v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1920] 1 KB 64 as applied in T.M. Bell v Commissioner of Income Tax [1960] EALR 224 ... Roland J. stated, “ …in a taxing Act, one has to look at what is clearly said. There is no room for intendment as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing it to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used… If a person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be.”*** 1. Guided by the above, I find that the Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act and as a result arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the Respondent’s interest income earned from various banks was exempt from tax. **Issuance of multiple PINs** 1. The Tribunal found that the issuance of two PINs to Kenya Roads Board and Kenya Roads Board Fund was illegal on the basis that a taxpayer can only have one PIN at a particular time and because the fund is not a body corporate capable of being issued with a PIN. 2. The Tribunal ordered the parties to ensure cancellation of the PIN issued for the KRBF within 90 days of delivery of the judgment pursuant to **sections 10 and 14 of the Tax Procedures Act**, **consequent upon which the assessment will be deemed null and void.** 3. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred by declaring the issuance of two PINs to the respondent illegal. That its decision to retain the two PINs temporarily to safeguard tax integrity was an exercise of lawful administrative discretion, not illegality.It confirmed that **section 12 (2) of the TPA** provides that a person shall be issued only one PIN for purposes of all tax laws. It however argued that the remedy for duplication is administrative correction, not a declaration of illegality. 4. The appellant argued that the Tribunal’s approach undermined its statutory powers. It pointed out that it was in the process of cancelling the second PIN and the pending actions of filling in the deregistration forms and settlement of the outstanding tax obligations were upon the respondent. The appellant argued that by overlooking the facts, the Tribunal improperly shifted the burden of administrative diligence from the respondent to it. 5. The respondent asserted that **section 31(5) of the Kenya Roads Board Act** allows it to spend up to 3% of the total collections in a given financial year towards recurrent expenditure. That it allocated 2% of its collections for operational purposes. That 98% of the total collections are distributed to various roads agencies. That guided by the **Public** **Finance** **Management** **Act**, it prepares two sets of financial statements to account for the funds for operations and the funds to be allocated to the road agencies. 6. The respondent submitted that based on the foregoing, the appellant required it to register a separate PIN in the name of the **Kenya Roads Board** for interest income yet it had another PIN for operations contrary to **section 12 of the TPA**. 7. The respondent asserted that the order by the Tribunal for cancellation of the second PIN was appropriate in the circumstances to prevent unlawful taxation of public funds. That it was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 3 of the **Tax Appeals Tribunal Act** to examine whether a tax decision is lawful. That only *ratio decidendi* may be challenged on appeal. 8. **Section 12 (2) of the Income Tax Act** provides that: - ***“(1) The Commissioner shall issue a PIN to a person registered under section 8.*** ***(2) A registered person shall use a PIN for the purposes of all tax laws and a registered person shall be issued with only one PIN at any time.”*** 1. I agree with the Tribunal’s finding that the appellant erred in its issuance of two PIN to Kenya Roads Board Fund. The transgression is a violation of the law and not merely administrative slip or duplication or exercise of discretion. It may however be remedied administratively immediately it is discovered and the taxpayer is duly informed. But where it forms a basis for judicial proceedings, the remedy would be a declaration of violation of the law and an order for immediate cancellation by KRA. Such order by the court directed at the transgressor is not shifting any burden of proof. In any event, the incident is available to the taxpayer to test whether the tax decision or assessment thereto was lawful. This is the law and does not give KRA a leeway to issue or maintain more than one PIN in respect of a registered person. 2. However, there is need to vary the final orders following the finding that the interest income was subject to tax. The variation is dictated by the circumstances of this case and is not in rem decision. Thus, the respondent shall file in the deregistration forms and settle the outstanding tax obligations under section 10 as found in this judgment after which-not later than 7 days- the appellant shall cancel the offending PIN under section 14. To avoid back and forth or violation of this decision, a structural interdict intervention is justified allowing any party to apply post judgment to confirm compliance. **Conclusion** 1. In conclusion, the appeal is partly allowed. The Tribunal’s final order (a) is set aside. 2. **The respondent shall, within ninety (90) days of the date of this judgment, complete and submit all requisite deregistration forms and comply with the requirements under sections 10 and 14 of the Tax Procedures Act, including the settlement of any outstanding tax obligations, to facilitate the deregistration of the PIN.** 3. **Upon the respondent's compliance with the foregoing requirements, the appellant shall cancel the PIN issued in respect of the Kenya Roads Board Fund in accordance with section 14 of the Tax Procedures Act within 7 days thereof.** 4. **Given the nature of the orders above, any party may apply.** 5. **Each party to bear its own costs.** **Dated, signed and delivered through Microsoft Teams online application this 9th day of July, 2026** **-----------------** **F. Gikonyo M** **Judge** **In the presence of: -** Osoro for Appellant Abdullahi for Respondent CA- Ivan/Aggrey