[2024] KETAT 52 (KLR)

Keitt Exporters Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 991 of 2022) [2024] KETAT 52 (KLR) (26 January 2024) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2024] KETAT 52 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Tax Appeal Tribunal

Tax Appeal 991 of 2022

E.N Wafula, Chair, Cynthia B. Mayaka, RO Oluoch, E Ng'ang'a, AK Kiprotich & B Gitari, Members

January 26, 2024

Between

Keitt Exporters Limited

Appellant

and

Commissioner Of Domestic Taxes

Respondent

Judgment

Background 1. The Appellant is a limited liability company incorporated in Kenya whose principal business activity is growing and exporting of fruits and vegetables to Europe and the Middle East.

2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under and in accordance with Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) Act, and KRA is charged with the responsibility of among others, assessment, collection, accounting and the general administration of tax revenue on behalf of the Government of Kenya.

3. The Respondent on 16th May 2022 issued the Appellant with Income tax and VAT assessments for the period 2016 to 2020 amounting to Kshs. 50,832,051. 46.

4. The Appellant objected on 14th June 2022.

5. The Respondent issued its objection decision on 19th August 2022.

6. Following its dissatisfaction with the Respondent’s decision, the Appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal to the Tribunal dated 30th August 2022 and filed on the same date.

7. After a series of meetings at the ADR, the parties reached an ADR agreement on 28th February 2023 and thereafter a Partial Consent was filed at the Tribunal on 13th March 2023. The ADR process could not resolve the matter of a tax assessment of Kshs. 6,108,948. 00 relating to Withholding income tax on labour sub-contracting arrangements which is the subject of the instant Appeal.

The Appeal 8. The Appeal is premised on the following grounds as stated in the Appellant’s Memorandum of Appeal dated and filed on 12th September, 2022:-i.That the objection decision was rendered out of time. The information voluntarily submitted on 22nd June, 2022 and without request from the Respondent do not constitute what is referred to as “any further information the Commissioner may require from the taxpayer”.ii.That in arriving at the VAT additional assessments, the Respondent erred in law and fact by not splitting the variances between zero rated and general rated sales.iii.That in arriving at the PAYE additional assessments, the Appellant contended that Respondent erred in law and fact by not adjusting for bonus payments which were provided for in one end year month but taxed and declared in the subsequent start year month.iv.That in arriving at the additional assessments on bad debts, the Respondent erred in law and fact by not balancing out all factors stipulated in the Legal Notice Number 37 of 2011.

Appellant’s Case 9. The Appellant’s case is premised on the following documents:i.Its Statement of Facts dated and filed on 12th September 2022 together with the documents attached thereto and proceedings before the Tribunal.ii.Its written submissions dated 14th March 2023 and filed on 8th April 2023 together with the legal authorities filed therewith.

10. That the objection decision was rendered out of time. That the information voluntarily submitted on 22nd June 2022 and without request from the Respondent does not constitute what is referred to as “any further information the Commissioner may require from the taxpayer”. That in any case the only further information by the Respondent was requested on 5th July 2022 which was not submitted to the Respondent since the same information had been provided during the audit and prior to the Notice of Assessment date.

11. That the Respondent's objection decision was rendered in a hurry on 19th August 2022 in response to the Appellant’s letter dated 18th August 2022 requesting for reversal of the additional assessments.

12. That in arriving at the VAT additional assessments, the Respondent erred in law and fact by not splitting the variances between zero rated and general rated sales. The Appellant's contention is that the variances were not entirely out of general rated sales since the general rated sales constitute less than one percent of total sales. The other portion being zero rated sales. The Appellant also contended that the Respondent erred by not adjusting for rebates despite having been given supporting documents and explanations for the same during the audit.

13. That in arriving at the PAYE additional assessments, the Appellant contended that the Respondent erred in law and fact by not adjusting for bonus payments which were provided for in one end year month but taxed and declared in the subsequent start year month. The Appellant also contended that the Respondent erred by not considering lumpsum and leave allowances payments that were factored into the employee payroll and taxed accordingly and remitted.

14. The Appellant contended that in arriving at the additional assessments on bad debts, the Respondent erred in law and fact by not balancing out all factors stipulated in the Legal Notice Number 37 of 2011. That the Appellant considered the factors in the said Legal Notice before writing off the debts.

15. That the Commissioner tax assessed direct labour costs paid to casual workers on the argument that these labour costs constituted subcontracted labour to a service provider called Volt Management Services Ltd. That however, the contract between the Appellant with the service provider was categorical on the split between reimbursement costs and management fees. That the Respondent dismissed the contractual agreement as a localized private arrangement inconsistent with the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Act Cap 470.

16. That reimbursement costs are sufficiently supported and are not subject to withholding tax since they are not income or revenues of the recipient but a third party payment.

17. That the Appellant contracted Volt Management Services Ltd to enlist casual labour in the pack house. That this arrangement was most ideal for the Appellant due to the seasonality of the export business that often results in random fluctuation of the number of casual workers required at the packhouse at different times. That the contract had specific terms to be fulfilled by each party.

18. That among other terms, the contract stipulated that payments to Volt Management Services Ltd shall be a two tier payment. One tier consisting of reimbursement costs and the other tier consisting of management fees. That the reimbursement costs were the exact amount of payment made to the casual workers based attendance worksheets and summarized worksheets that specifies the personal names, amount paid, amounts deducted for NSSF, NHIF etc.

19. That the reimbursement payments have no mark up since they are the direct payments to the casuals and therefore no withholding tax was deducted. That the management fee would be the payment to Volt Management Services Ltd for sourcing and managing the casual labourers.

20. That this management fees was subjected to withholding tax and the same duly remitted to the Respondent.

21. That the Appellant submitted to the Respondent all the contract documents with Volt Management, the labour worksheets and the invoices from Volt Management Services Ltd, and that the same documents were filed with this Appeal.

22. The Appellant puts forth the following issues for determination:i.Whether the Respondent is justified and is within the tax laws to raise a withholding tax assessment on reimbursements that do not constitute income to the recipient.ii.Whether the Respondent is justified to disregard the structure of a binding contract as long as it is legally made.

23. That Section 5(2)(2) of the ITA provides that:“For the purposes of section 3(2)(a)(ii), "gains or profits" includes:-Provided that:1)(ii) where the Commissioner is satisfied that subsistence, travelling, entertainment or other allowance represents solely the reimbursement to the recipient of an amount expended by him wholly and exclusively in the production of his income from the employment or services rendered then the calculation of the gains or profits of the recipient shall exclude that allowance or expenditure;”

24. That the Third Schedule of the ITA provides that:“5. The resident withholding tax rates shall be -(j)(i) in respect of management or professional fee or training fee, other than contractual fee; the aggregate value of which is twenty-four thousand shillings in a month or more, five per cent of the gross amount payable; ii) in respect of contractual fee the aggregate value of which is twenty four thousand shillings in a month or more, three per cent of the gross amount payable.”

25. The Appellant relied on the Tax Appeals Tribunal Judgement in Appeal No 304 of 2019 between Pevans East Africa vs. The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes where it was ruled that there is a lacuna in law for the period 2016 to 2019. That the judgement is clear on the application of Finance Act 2016 Section 35 and Finance Act 2019 Section 35 (6). That the TAT judgement on Appeal No 420 of 2021 between Two Lakes Packaging Services Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, the judgement is clear that only management fees is subject to withholding taxes and not the labour costs.

26. That the facts of Tax Appeals Tribunal Judgement on Appeal No 420 of 2021 between Two Lakes Packaging Services Ltd as the Appellant and Commissioner of Domestic Taxes were similar to the matter at hand.

Appellant’s Prayers 27. The Appellant made the following prayers:a.The Respondent be compelled to lift the withholding tax assessment along with its penalty and interest.b.The Appeal be allowed with costs.

The Respondent’s Case 28. The Respondent’s case is premised on the hereunder filed documents and proceedings before the Tribunal: -i.The Respondent’s Statement of Facts dated and filed on 7th October 2022 together with the documents attached thereto.ii.The Respondent’s written submissions dated 2nd May 2023 and filed on 9th May 2023 together with the legal authorities filed therewith.

29. That the Respondent established variances in turnover as declared in Income tax returns as tabulated below:YEAR IT REVENUE VAT REVENUE IT-VATVARIANCE

2020 2,301,908,017 2,254,053,521 47,854,496

2019 2,865,671,321 2,821,793,393 43,877,928

2018 3,111,287,471 3,086,083,060 25,204,411

2017 2,917,313,833 2,894,853,170 22,460,663

2016 2,415,070,056 2,408,305,054 6,765,002

TOTAL 13,611,250,698 13,465,088,198 146,162,500

30. That the Respondent reviewed the evidence furnished in response including reconciliation and explanations given by the Appellant and established under-declaration of VAT as tabulated below:Year 2020 2019 2017

Other income 2,301,908,017 2,865,671,321 2,917,313,833

VAT TURNOVER 2,254,053,521 2,821,793,393 2,894,853,170

VARIANCE 47,854,496 43,877,928 22,460,663

Explained by TP

Exchange gain 18,751,614 - 5,075,468

Profit on disposal 371,642 710,507 -

Claim proceeds 4,335,297 9,441,099 -

Rebates 12,333,092 16,336,072 272,950

Bank ChargesRecovery 164,720 2054764

Interest Income 8,074,558 11,225,530 1,832,413

UnexplainedVariance 3,988,293 6,000,000 13,225,068

31. That the variances noted above were charged as under declarations as per Section 5 of the VAT Act, 2013.

32. That further, the Respondent established under declaration of Income tax for years of income 2018 and 2016 as here below:2018 2016

Business Income 3,105,879,579 2,406,791,960

Other 5,407,892 8,278,096

IT TOTAL TURNOVER 3,111,287,471 2,415,070,056

VAT TURNOVER 3,086,083,060 2,408,305,054

VARIANCE 25,204,411 6,765,002

Explained by TP

Exchange gain - 5,361,486

Profit on disposal 1,360,746 1,361,490

Claim proceeds 4,047,146 1,555,120

Rebates 8,544,034 7,017,401

Bank Charges Recovery 2,206,876 1,249,154

Interest Income 9,301,263 616,058

Unexplained Variance (255,654) (10,395,707)

33. That according to the Respondent, variations in staff costs as claimed in income tax returns vis a vis amounts declared in PAYE returns were as follows:YEAR 2020 2019 2018 2017

Staff Cost as per IT2C 98,600,582 92,206,682 118,746,125 107,313,877

Staff Costs as per PAYEreturns 56,917,872 50,748,206 51,604,470 61,341,045

VARIANCES 41,682,710 41,458,476 67,141,655 45,972,832

Explained by TP:

Wages for Casuals &Outsourced Labour 34,780,661 37,272,540 31,716,906 27,948,211

General staff costs (staffwelfare & Rent) 3,483,663 1,566,328 1,312,172

Employee PensionContribution 1,045,274 1,073,830 1,112,576

Unexplained Variance 2,373,112 1,545,778 33,000,001 18,024,621

34. That the variances above were treated as overstated staff costs and disallowed in accordance to Section 16(1) of the Income Tax Act Cap 470 of the laws of Kenya.

35. That bad debts claimed of Kshs. 43,081,909. 00 and Kshs. 3,669,354. 00 in 2017 and 2018 respectively were disallowed. That the Appellant did not provide any evidence of efforts or steps to recover the debts.

36. That regarding, realized exchange loss for the year 2019 of Kshs. 40,602,521. 00, the Commissioner disallowed the loss in line with Section 16 (1) of the Income Tax Act Cap 470 since no explanation/evidence in support was provided.

37. That the following capital allowances were disallowed due to the below listed reasons:Capital allowance disallowed 2020 2019 2018

Kennol Parkhouse Building-oil unit 1,050,000

Avacado line machine duty 1(20. 6m*10%) 2,066,323

Avacado line machine duty 2(16. 4m*10%) 1,647,549

Muranga County registration (2m*10%) 200,005 200,005 200,005

TOTAL 4,963,877 200,005 200,005i.Kennol Parkhouse Building-oil unit (10. 5m*10%) - The cost relating to this item does not qualify for capital allowance since it is not commercially operational.ii.Avacado line machine duty 1 &2 - Payment did not exist in the customs data provided.iii.Muranga County Registration - These are preliminary costs hence do not qualify for capital allowance.

38. That the Appellant entered into labour subcontracting arrangements with Volt Management Services Ltd. and only withheld income tax on a specific element of the total invoice amount paid to the service provider.

39. The Respondent took the view that the Appellant ought to have withheld on the total amounts payable to the subcontractor in line with the 3rd Schedule of the Income Tax Act which includes total cost of labour plus mark up. That the variances below were brought to charge as below:-PERIOD 2020 2019 2018 2017

Amounts Paid to VoltManagement Services 33,146,903 36,566,930 31,716,906 27,948,211

Withholding tax@5% 1,657,345 1,828,347 1,585,845 1,397,411

Amount withheld as perItax 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000

Variance 1,567,345 1,738,347 1,495,845 1,307,411

40. That the Appellant lodged a notice of objection dated 9th June 2022 and received on 14th June 2022 in response to the notice of assessment issued on 16th May 2022. That vide a further letter dated 20th June 2022 and received on 22nd June 2022; the Appellant provided yet another set of records to the Respondent. That according to Section 51(11) of the Tax Procedures Act, the Commissioner is required to make a decision within 60 days from the date of objection or provision of additional records the Commissioner may require.

41. That the Appellant availed additional records on the 22nd June 2022 and that this is the date the 60 days began running. That the objection decision was issued on 22nd August 2022 within time.

42. That the Respondent requested further records from the Appellant on 5th July 2022, and further reached out via email on 25th July 2022. That on both occasions the Appellant did not respond nor provide the records.

43. That for the years of income 2018 and 2017, the Appellant claims that the variances are attributed to a bonus of Kshs. 33,000,000. 00 relating to 2017 declared and paid in April 2018 PAYE return as well as a bonus of Kshs. 20,000,000. 00 relating to 2018 but declared and paid in 2019 PAYE return. That below would be the net variance after considering the above explanation by the taxpayer:Year 2020 2019 2018 2017 Total

Staff Cost asPer IT2C: 98,600,582 92,206,682 118,746,125 107,313,877

Staff Cost asPer PAYERETURNS: 56,917,872 50,748,206 51,604,470 61,341,045 220,611,593

Variance atAssessment 41,682,710 41,458,476 67,141,655 45,972,832

Explained ByTP 39,309,599 39,912,698 34,141,655 27,948,211

UnexplainedVariance 2,373,111 1,545,778 33,000,000 18,024,621 54,943,510

Staff Cost as Per PAYE Return As Per TP Objection Ground No. 2

Staff Cost asPer IT2C: 98,600,582 92,206,682 118,746,125 107,313,877 Staff Cost asPer PAYERETURNS: 56,917,872 50,748,206 51,604,470 61,341,045

Less 0 33,000,000 20,000,000 0

Add 0 0 33,000,000 20,000,000

Net Staff Cost 56,917,872 17,748,206 64,604,470 81,341,045 220,611,593

Variance 41,682,710 74,458,476 54,141,655 25,972,832

Explained ByTP 39,309,599 39,912,698 34,141,655 27,948,211

UnexplainedVariance 2,373,111 34,545,778 20,000,000 -1,975,379 54,943,510

44. That based on the above tabulation, the Appellant still has unexplained variances between staff costs in its IT2C returns and monthly PAYE returns.

45. That withholding tax on management fees as provided for by the Income Tax Act is chargeable at 5% on the total amount payable to a subcontractor. That the Appellant's decision to only withhold income tax on a specific element of the total amount paid to Volt Management Services Limited and classify the other portion of the payment as reimbursement is a private arrangement that is inconsistent with the provision of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Act.

46. That this has also been reiterated by Technical Circular No. 60: Guidelines on taxation of Labour subcontracting arrangements; KEL ought to have withheld and paid management fees on the total invoice amounts and not on specific items in the invoice.

47. That the Appellant did not demonstrate that it has extinguished all debt recovery efforts as provided for by Legal Notice No. 37 of 2011.

48. That further, the Appellant did not demonstrate that the exchange losses claimed were actually incurred and not merely a provision as provided by Section 4A of the Income Tax Act. That evidence of invoices, proof of payments, loan agreements were not provided.

49. That overall, the Appellant did not offer the Respondent explanations and clarification on the outstanding issues despite opportunity and time allowed to do so.

50. The Respondent submitted that it is at liberty to make assessments based on information available to it in accordance to Section 24(2) of the Tax Procedures Act. Section 24 (2) of the Tax Procedures Act states that:“The Commissioner shall not be bound by a tax return or information provided by, or on behalf of a taxpayer and the Commissioner may assess a taxpayer's tax liability using any information available to the Commissioner.”

51. That Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act empowers the Respondent to make alterations or additions to original assessments from available information for a reporting period based on the Commissioner's best judgement. That this Section provides that;-“Subject to this section, the Commissioner may amend an assessment (referred to in this section as the “original assessment") by making alterations or additions, from the available information and to the best of the Commissioner's judgement, to the original assessment of a taxpayer for a reporting period to ensure that-a)In the case of a deficit carried forward the Income Tax Act (Cap 470), the taxpayer is assessed in respect of the correct amount of the deficit carried forward for the reporting period;b)In the case of an excess amount of input tax under the Value Added Tax Act, 2013 (No 35 of 2013), the tax payer is assessed in respect of the correct amount of the excess input tax carried forward for the reporting period; orc)In any other case, the taxpayer is liable for the correct amount of tax payable in respect of the reporting period to which the original assessment relates.”

52. That from the foregoing paragraph, it is clear that the Respondent relied on its best judgement based on information available to it in compliance with Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act while raising the assessment under Withholding income tax.

53. That the Court in Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs. Altech Stream (EA) Limited [2021] eKLR stated that Section 31(1) of the Tax Procedures Act allows the Commissioner to make an assessment based on such information as may be available and to the best of his judgement.

54. That the Respondent further relied on Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act that empowers it to seek any information relating to the ascertaining of the correct tax liability of an Appellant.

55. That the Court in Osho Drapers Limited vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2022] eKLR, held that Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act empowers the Commissioner to request for more and additional information to satisfy himself on the taxable income declared.

56. That the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Act, Head B, Paragraph 5 provides that “withholding tax on management fees is chargeable at 5% on the total amount payable to a subcontractor.”

57. That pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions, the Appellant was expected to charge withholding tax on the total amount that was payable to the management company.

58. That this position was also reiterated in Technical Circular No. 60 Guidelines on taxation of Labour subcontracting arrangements, the Appellant ought to have withheld and paid management fees on the total invoice amounts and not on specific items in the invoice.

59. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has not discharged its burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.

60. That Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act places the burden on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect. The Section provides that:-“In any proceedings under this Part, the burden shall be on the Appellant to prove that a tax decision is incorrect.”

61. That Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act provides that when appealing to the Tribunal, the Appellant has the burden of proving that where an appeal relates to an assessment, that the assessment is excessive or in any other case, the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently.

62. The Respondent also relied on the following cases:i.Prima Rosa Flowers Limited versus Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2019] eKLR.ii.Ushindi Exporters Limited versus Commissioner of Investigation and Enforcement ( Tax Appeals Tribunal No 7 of 2015).iii.Tumaini Distributors Company (K) Limited and Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2020] eKLR.

Respondent’s Prayers 63. The Respondent prayed that the Tribunal:i.Dismisses this Appeal and upholds the Respondent's assessment.ii.Orders the Appellant to pay costs of this Appeal.

Issues For Determination 64. The Tribunal noted that subsequent to filing the Appeal, the parties entered into a Partial Consent that settled the Income Tax and PAYE assessments and by their consensus referred the withholding tax assessment for the Tribunal’s determination.

65. The Tribunal has carefully studied the pleadings and documentation filed by both parties as well as the Partial Consent filed; and is of the respectful view that the singular issue for its determination is as follows:-Whether the withholding tax assessment was justified.

Analysis And Determination 66. The Tribunal having ascertained the issue for determination as set out above proceeds to deal with the same as hereunder.

67. The Appellant averred that it contracted Volt Management Services Ltd. to provide casual workers for its pack houses. Further that the contract stipulates two tier payments: management fees and reimbursement for the exact amount paid by Volt Management Services Ltd. to the casuals in any given period.

68. The Appellant averred that only the management fee potion of the contract was subject to withholding tax which the Appellant withheld and remitted to KRA.

69. On its part, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant's decision to only withhold income tax on a specific element of the total amount paid to Volt Management Services Limited and classify other portion of the payment as reimbursement is a private arrangement that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Act.

70. The Respondent argued that this has also been reiterated by Technical Circular No. 60: Guidelines on Taxation of Labour subcontracting arrangements, and that the Appellant ought to have withheld and paid management fees on the total invoice amounts and not on specific items in the invoice.

71. The Tribunal having reviewed the parties’ pleadings in detail noted that the Appellant vehemently argued that reimbursement fees for the payment of its casuals by a contracted third party should not be subjected to withholding tax.

72. The Tribunal then went further to establish whether this averment was supported and noted that the Appellant, in its pleadings, stated that it had submitted the contract document to the Respondent; which averment the Respondent did not dispute.

73. The Tribunal however, needed to review the said contract and/ or any other relevant documentation, for instance invoices from the third-party contractor to the Appellant, that would provide a breakdown and/ or full description of the services that the Appellant paid for in regard to the labour sub-contracting arrangement with Volt Management Services Ltd.

74. The Tribunal having reviewed the Appellant’s pleadings exhaustively established that the Appellant did not adduce any documentation to support its averments relating to the labour subcontracting arrangement.

75. The provision of documents as evidence is well stated under Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act which provides as thus:-“In a proceeding before the Tribunal, the appellant has the burden of proving-(a)Where an appeal relates to an assessment, that the assessment is excessive; or(b)In any other case, that the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently.”

76. The Tribunal further relies on Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act which states as follows in relation to general provisions relating to objections and appeals:“In any proceedings under this Part, the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect.”

77. Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (TATA) places the burden of proof on the taxpayer to submit all the necessary documentation to support its case. This position was held by the court in Alfred Kioko Muteti vs. Timothy Miheso & Another [2015] eKLR where it was held that a party can only discharge its burden upon adducing evidence. Merely making pleadings is not enough. The court stated that:“Thus, the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given by either party…. Pleadings are not evidence, and it is not enough to plead particulars of negligence and make no attempt in one’s testimony in court to demonstrate by way of evidence how the accident occurred and how the 1st defendant was to blame for the said accident. It is trite law that he who alleges must prove and that burden does not shift to the adverse party even if the case proceeds by way of formal proof and or undefended.”

78. It is trite law that the burden to prove that a tax assessment is erroneous lies on the Appellant and that the Appellant therefore should have adduced documentary evidence to support its averments in the instant case.

Final Decision 79. In view of the foregoing and in appreciation of the purport of the Partial Consent dated and filed on the 13th March, 2023 that was endorsed as Part Judgment on the 4th April, 2023, the Tribunal finds that the Appeal partially succeeds to the extent of the tax liability allowed by the Consent and accordingly makes the following Orders: -a.The Appeal be and is hereby partially allowed.b.The Respondent’s Objection decision dated 19th August, 2022 be and, save for the Consent dated and filed on 13th March, 2023, is hereby upheld.c.Each Party to bear its own costs.

80. It is so ordered.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024ERIC NYONGESA WAFULA - CHAIRMANCYNTHIA B. MAYAKA - MEMBERDR. RODNEY O. OLUOCH - MEMBEREUNICE NG’ANG’A - MEMBERABRAHAM K. KIPROTICH - MEMBERBERNADETTE GITARI - MEMBER