https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/134

Kirima and Sons Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal E683 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 134 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KETAT 134 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Tax Appeal Tribunal Appeal E683 of 2025 RM Mutuma, Chair, JM Malla, T Vikiru & G Ogaga, Members July 3, 2026 Between Kirima and Sons Limited Appellant and Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Respondent Judgment Background 1.The Appellant is a limited liability company incorporated in Kenya under the Companies Act. The Appellant operates in the real estate industry. 2.The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, Cap 469 Laws of Kenya (KRA Act). Under Section 5 (1) of the Act, KRA is an agency of the Government for the collection and receipt of all revenue. For the performance of its function under Subsection (1), the Authority is mandated under Section 5(2) of the Act to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to the KRA Act to assess, collect, and account for all revenues under those laws. 3.The Respondent issued the Appellant with Income tax additional assessments for the periods 2019 to 2023 on 30th January 2025 following a tax declaration verification exercise conducted by the Respondent. 4.The Appellant objected to the assessments on 12th March 2025. 5.The Respondent issued an Objection decision on 8th May 2025 confirming the assessments. 6.The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent’s Objection decision, filed its Notice of Appeal dated 19th June 2025 on the same date. The Appeal 7.The Appeal is premised on the Memorandum of Appeal dated 27th June 2025 and filed on even date which raised the following grounds: -a.That the Appellant is not a provider of repairs and maintenance services neither security services and procured those services from relevant service providers. That the Appellant has requested the service providers in Appendix F6.b.That after the assessment and during the objection process, the Appellant explained the above facts and also the challenge of obtaining the documents due to the ongoing succession cases and disputes between parties. That the IRO is guided by restricted time guideline i.e. 60 days and therefore had no option than to confirm the assessments.c.That based on the foregoing, the Appellant’s questions for determination are as follows:a.Did the Appellant own residential property that generated rental income in the period 2019-2023?b.Did the Appellant provide the Respondent with self-assessment through the iTax platform?c.Did the Appellant incur costs to keep properties habitable, this include repairs and maintenance plus security costs?d.Were these two costs (repairs and security) totally disallowed by the Respondent in arriving at its Objection decision?e.Were these 2 items of costs (repairs and maintenance and security) incurred and claimed by Appellant in 2019-2023 years of income as business expenses, and hence tax deductible?d.That on the basis of the evidence provided along with these appeal papers as well as the Appellant’s averments set out above, this Tribunal will find that the answers to all questions is yes.e.That having found so, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Respondent’s assessment is unreasonable, unfounded, and excessive, was hurried and not anchored in the income tax law and law of natural justice. Appellant’s Case 8.The Appellant’s case is premised on its Statement of Facts dated 27th June 2025 and filed on the same date. 9.That Appellant stated that on 30th January 2025 the Respondent issued a pre-assessment notice for the period 2019-2023 demanding a principal tax of Kshs. 50,773,297 (Kshs.66,479,127 inclusive of penalty and interest). 10.That on 12th March 2025, the Appellant objected via iTax the entire additional income tax assessments. 11.That on 8th May 2025, the Respondent issued the Objection decision and confirmed the additional assessment of Kshs. 52,858,957 on the basis that the Appellant failed to avail the supporting documentation for repairs and maintenance and security costs which led to the additional assessment. 12.The Appellant pointed out to the Tribunal that its principal shareholder and director then was the late Hon. G.K. Kirima. That following his death, the Estate was subject to change of the Board of Directors, but a legal dispute between the parties, which were subjected to court intervention occurred, some of which are still in court processes. That these issues have negatively affected the storage and production of records related to the business. That the Estate is still the subject of prolonged succession and other legal processes. That this included some key operating decisions subjected to court references on need basis. 13.The Appellant averred that the genesis of this dispute is that the Respondent reviewed the Appellant’s returns filed in the iTax platform for the period 2019-2023. That the Respondent disallowed all costs related to repairs and maintenance and security expenses. 14.The Appellant submitted that Section 15(1) of Income Tax Act (Cap 470) provides that for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable income, a person will deduct all expenses which are wholly and exclusively incurred by him in the production of that income. That disallowing such expenses is therefore a fundamental breach of the Principle of Taxation, as under Kenyan law, tax is charged on taxable income of a person, which is a function of income less allowable expenses. 15.The Appellant stated that it is not in dispute that the Appellant owns residential properties; that it is further not in dispute that the Appellant rented out the properties and generated income as recognised by the Respondent; that the Appellant brought to the attention of the Respondent that the properties are of age and required major repairs to continue to make them habitable and competitive in the era of new residential properties in the make. 16.The Appellant also submitted that it is the responsibility of the landlord to provide security to the tenants through hiring of security guards for day and night. That failure to such provision leads to insecurity and flight of tenants. 17.The Appellant asserted that they are not providers of repairs and maintenance service neither security services and procured those services from relevant service providers. 18.That after the assessment and during the objection process, the Appellant explained the above facts and also the challenge of obtaining the documents due to the ongoing succession cases and disputes between parties. That the IRO is guided by restricted time guideline, that is, 60 days and therefore had no option than to confirm the assessments. 19.It stated that on 21st February 2025, the Court issued an order directing Ann Kirima Stephen Kirima to be the administrators of Gerishon Kamau Kirima Estate (which included Kirima & Sons LTD, the Appellant). 20.That on 21st May 2025, the appointed administrators through their lawyers, M/S Muriu Mungai & CO Advocates requested for the documents from the previous administrators for the period 2019-2024, including the expenses (which include repairs and maintenance and security). 21.That based on the foregoing, the Appellant’s questions for determination are as follows:a.Did the Appellant own residential property that generated rental income in the period 2019-2023?b.Did the Appellant provide the respondent with self-assessment through the iTax platform?c.Did the Appellant incur costs to keep properties habitable, this include repairs and maintenance plus security costs?d.Were these two costs totally disallowed by the Respondent in arriving at its objection decision?e.Were these 2 items of costs (repairs and maintenance and security) incurred and claimed by Appellant in years 2019-2023 years of income business expenses, and hence tax deductible? 22.The Appellant submitted that on the basis of the evidence provided along with the Appeal papers as well as its averments set out above, this Tribunal will find that the answers to all questions is yes. That having found so, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Respondent’s assessment is unreasonable, unfounded, and excessive, was hurried and not anchored in the income tax law and law of natural justice. Appellant’s Prayer 23.The Appellant prayed for the Tribunal to:a.Set aside the principal assessment in full of Kshs. 50,773,297 together with penalty and interest and the Objection decision. Respondent’s Case 24.The Respondent’s case is premised on the following documents filed before the Tribunal:a.The Respondent’s Statement of Facts dated 28th November 2025 and filed on the same date; andb.Its Written Submissions dated 28th April 2026 and filed on 29th April 2026. 25.The Respondent stated that it conducted a review of the Appellant’s Income tax and VAT declarations for the years 2019 to 2023, and the review noted inconsistencies between the declared revenue in the IT2C returns and nil VAT declarations. That in addition, the Respondent sought to verify whether the Appellant’s declared expenses were wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of income. 26.The Respondent further stated that on 23rd October 2024, a Notice of Intention to Verify Tax Declarations was issued, and the Appellant did not respond or submit the requested documentation. That a Pre-Assessment Notice dated 30th January 2025 was issued, but again the Appellant failed to respond. That on 27th February 2025, the Respondent issued Additional Income Tax Assessments amounting to Kshs. 52,858,957 covering the years 2019 to 2023, arising from the full disallowance of unsubstantiated expenses under repairs and security. 27.That the Appellant lodged a Notice of Objection via iTax on 12th March 2025. That however, the objection was not accompanied by any grounds or supporting documentation as required under Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015. 28.The Respondent issued a Notice of Invalid Objection on 26th March 2025. That a subsequent meeting was held on 14th April 2025, during which the Appellant was provided with a copy of the assessment and invited to regularize its objection. That despite this opportunity, the Appellant still failed to submit grounds and evidence. 29.The Respondent submitted that in compliance with the 60-day statutory period under Section 51(11) of the TPA, it issued an Objection decision dated 8th May 2025, confirming the assessments due to the Appellant’s persistent non-compliance and failure to substantiate the disputed expenses. That dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, the Appellant filed the instant appeal. 30.The Respondent contended that it is now evident that the Appellant is attempting to cure its non-compliance at the appeal stage by submitting new factual allegations and attaching documents that were not part of the objection process. That this approach undermines the integrity of the administrative dispute resolution process and violates the legislative intent of Section 51(4) of the TPA, which restricts a taxpayer from raising new grounds or evidence at the appeal stage unless they were presented during the objection phase. 31.The Respondent maintained that allowing the Appellant to rely on previously withheld documents or explanations would amount to an abuse of process and would render the objection framework under the TPA futile. That it would prejudice the Respondent, who made its decision within the statutory limits and based on the information then available. 32.That accordingly, the Appellant’s claim that the disallowed expenses were “actually incurred” is unsubstantiated and should not be entertained by the Tribunal. That the onus of proof lies with the taxpayer, and in this case, the Appellant has failed to discharge this legal burden both factually and procedurally. 33.The Respondent relied on the following provisions: Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, which provides that only expenses wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of income are deductible; Section 51(3) and (4) of the Tax Procedures Act which provides that objections must be accompanied by grounds and documentation. That a failure to comply renders the objection invalid; and Section 3 of the Income Tax Act which provides that income tax is chargeable on gains or profits from any business. 34.The Respondent asserted that it acted lawfully, giving the Appellant multiple opportunities to comply. That due process was followed, including issuance of formal notices, meetings, and timelines per statutory requirements. 35.It was the Respondent’s case that the Appellant has failed, at every stage, to discharge the burden of proof imposed upon it by Section 56 of the TPA and Section 30 of the TAT Act. It contended that succession disputes, while regrettable, afford no legal excuse for corporate non-compliance. 36.The Respondent maintained that the tax assessment issued was properly founded in fact and law, and that the Objection decision was fair, reasonable, and made in accordance with statutory provisions. Respondent’s Submissions 37.The Respondent submitted that Section 15(1) of the ITA is the cornerstone of allowable deductions. That it provides that, for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable income of any person, there shall be deducted “all expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in the production of that income, which imposes a strict dual test: the expenditure must be incurred wholly for the production of income and exclusively for that purpose. 38.The Respondent argued that repairs and security costs for rental properties may, in principle, qualify if properly documented and proven to relate directly to the income-producing activity. That however, the law does not permit a taxpayer to claim such deductions on the basis of mere assertion or self-assessment without contemporaneous evidence. 39.That the Appellant claimed repairs (averaging over Kshs. 30 million per year) and security expenses were material and directly impacted taxable income. That in the absence of invoices, payment vouchers, service provider contracts, bank transfer evidence, or any other corroborative material, the Respondent correctly treated the claims as unsubstantiated. 40.That this approach is consistent with long-established Kenyan jurisprudence. In Tile and Carpet Centre Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2020] eKLR (Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2016), the Tribunal (and subsequently the High Court) held that interest expense is deductible under Section 15 only if the taxpayer proves it was wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of income. That thee mere booking of an expense in the financial statements is insufficient; documentary proof is mandatory. 41.That similarly, in Ushindi Limited v Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement [2020] eKLR (Income Tax Appeal E001 of 2019), the High Court emphasised that Section 15 cannot be complied with “in the absence of documents availed by the Appellant for a comprehensive tax assessment.” 42.The Respondent also relied on the holding in the Tribunal case of Zunaksha Investment Limited Vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E1101 of 2024), regarding the burden of proof. 43.The Respondent maintained that the disallowance was therefore not arbitrary but a direct application of the statutory test. 44.It submitted that the TPA introduced a robust, time-bound objection mechanism precisely to ensure that disputes are resolved administratively with full disclosure at the earliest stage. That Section 51(3) is clear and mandatory: a Notice of Objection “shall be accompanied by the grounds of the objection and the documents in support of the objection”. That failure to comply renders the objection invalid. That Kenyan courts and the Tribunal have consistently upheld the strictness of this provision. 45.The Respondent averred that the Appellant’s Objection was a bare iTax filing lacking both grounds and documentation. That the Respondent’s Notice of Invalid Objection dated 26th March 2025 was therefore lawfully issued. 46.The Respondent referred to Africa’s Talking Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal E733 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1455, where the Tribunal reiterated that an objection unaccompanied by supporting documents does not meet the statutory threshold. That the Appellant’s failure at this threshold stage is fatal to its appeal. 47.The Respondent submitted that it is trite law that a taxpayer may not raise new grounds or introduce new evidence on appeal unless those grounds or evidence were presented during the objection process. That this provision is not directory; it is a deliberate legislative safeguard to prevent taxpayers from ambushing the Commissioner with material that should have been disclosed at the administrative stage. 48.The Respondent argued that the Appellant’s reliance on succession disputes, the court order of 21st February 2025, and the May 2025 letter to previous administrators is a classic attempt to cure defaults after the fact. That these materials post-date or were not tendered during the objection window. That allowing them would render the entire objection framework under the TPA nugatory and prejudice the Respondent, who made its decision on the basis of the information then available. 49.It was the Respondent’s Submission that the Tribunal has repeatedly struck out appeals that seek to introduce fresh material. That the principle is one of procedural fairness and finality. That the Appellant cannot now claim that “the IRO is guided by restricted time guidelines” as an excuse; the statutory timelines bind both parties equally, and the Appellant was afforded every reasonable opportunity to comply. 50.The Respondent asserted that the law is unequivocal: in any proceedings before the Tribunal, “the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect” (Section 56(1) TPA). Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, 2013 reinforces this by requiring the appellant to prove that an assessment is excessive or that a tax decision should not have been made. It stated that this burden does not shift to the Respondent unless and until the taxpayer discharges its initial evidential onus with competent, relevant, and admissible evidence. 51.The Respondent maintained that the Appellant has produced none not during verification, not during objection, and not even now in a form that was available to the Respondent at the material time. 52.The Respondent contended that the Appellant’s narrative of succession disputes is, at best, an explanation for delay; it is not evidence that the expenses were actually incurred wholly and exclusively for income production. That a limited liability company is a separate juristic person. The Respondent submitted that death or disputes concerning a shareholder/director do not absolve the company of its statutory duty under Section 23 of the TPA to keep records. 53.The Respondent concluded that where a taxpayer fails to furnish information, the Commissioner is entitled to make an assessment to the best of his judgement under Section 31 TPA. That the Respondent did precisely that after multiple invitations for evidence. It asserted that the assessments are not punitive; they are the inevitable consequence of the Appellant’s non-compliance. That to hold otherwise would reward taxpayers who withhold records and encourage forum-shopping at the appeal stage. Respondent’s Prayers 54.The Respondent prayed that the Tribunal:a.Upholds the assessments issued by the Commissioner as valid and enforceable;b.Awards costs of the Appeal to the Respondent. Issue for Determination 55.The Tribunal has considered the pleadings and the submissions made by the Parties, and considers the issue for determination as follows:Whether the Respondent was justified in confirming the Income tax additional assessments. Analysis and Findings 56.Having identified the issue for determination, the Tribunal proceeds to analyse the same as hereunder. 57.The Respondent assessed and subsequently confirmed additional Income tax assessments covering the years 2019-2023 arising from the disallowed repair and maintenance, and security expenses that the Appellant had claimed as deductions. The Respondent asserted that the Appellant failed to substantiate these expenses with any supporting documents or concrete grounds of objection. The Respondent further argued that it would be prejudiced if the Tribunal allows the Appellant to rely on previously withheld documents or explanations, considering that the Respondent made its decision within the statutory limits and based on the information then available. 58.The Appellant disputed the assessment on two limbs. First, that the repair and maintenance, and security expenses were genuinely incurred and procured from third-party service providers, being necessary to keep the subject properties that are of age habitable and competitive. Second, that the Appellant’s inability to substantiate these expenses at the assessment and objection stages was attributable to a succession dispute following the demise of its former director, the late Hon. G.K. Kirima, which disrupted its access to and custody of its own business records; that this explanation was communicated to the Respondent during the objection process; and that it has since taken active steps, through the newly appointed Estate administrators, to retrieve the outstanding records. 59.The Tribunal notes that neither document provided by the Appellant at the Appeal stage could have altered the Respondent’s decision-making process beyond the oral explanation already available to it, and their production on Appeal is not the kind of ambush by late-sprung evidence that Section 56(3) of the Tax Procedures Act and the authorities the Respondent relies on, including Africa’s Talking Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal E733 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1455, are designed to guard against. The Tribunal accordingly admits these documents for the limited purpose the Appellant tenders them, namely to explain the gap in the record, and not as proof of the deductibility of the underlying expenses. 60.The Tribunal notes that this is a duty attached to the Appellant as a distinct corporate person, and that the demise of its then director did not, in law, extinguish it. What the succession dispute is capable of explaining is not the existence of the duty but a disruption to the Appellant’s practical custody of the records kept in discharge of it, a distinction the Tribunal returns to below. 61.The burden lay on the Appellant to demonstrate that the Respondent’s assessments were excessive or incorrect, in accordance with Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act which provide as follows: -Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act“56.(1)In any proceedings under this Part, the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect.”Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act:“30.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.” 62.The Appellant, as a person carrying on business, was under the obligation to keep adequate records. Section 54A(1) of the Income Tax Act and Section 23 of the Tax Procedures Act of the Income Tax Act obligate a person carrying on a business to keep records of, among other documents, all receipts, accounts and books which in the opinion of the Commissioner, are adequate for the purpose of computing tax and retain them for five (5) years from the end of the relevant reporting period. 63.It is common ground, and admitted by the Appellant, that no documents substantiating the disallowed repair and maintenance, and security expenses were furnished to the Respondent at any stage. The Tribunal also observes that the documents have not been placed before it. 64.The documents that the Appellant placed before the Tribunal go to explaining the failure to produce the documentation, and comprise:a.Certified grant of letter of administration intestate dated 21st February 2025 issued by the High Court appointing Anne Wangari Kirima and Stephen Kirima as the administrators of the Estate of the late Hon. G.K. Kirima who had been a director of the Appellant prior to his demise.b.Letter dated 21st May 2025 by the Estate administrators to a Mr. Munge, an advocate, referred to by the Appellant as the previous administrators, requesting for the documents from for the period 2019-2024 to support the disallowed expenses. Specifically, the letter requested for:a.Bank statements for all company accounts from 2019 to 2024;b.Detailed expenses schedules covering all operational and capital expenditures;c.Supporting documents for all listed expenses – invoices, receipts, vouchers and contracts;d.Property schedules – names of property, listing of all the units, monthly rent per unit, and tenant listing. 65.The Tribunal finds the Appellant’s explanation for its inability to produce the outstanding records plausible. It is corroborated by a court-issued grant of letters of administration and by contemporaneous correspondence to the previous administrators, rather than resting on bare assertion, and is consistent with the undisputed change in the Appellant’s governance following the demise of Hon. G.K. Kirima. This distinguishes the Appellant’s position from the cases relied upon by the Respondent, including Tile and Carpet Centre Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2020] eKLR (Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2016), Ushindi Limited v Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement [2020] eKLR (Income Tax Appeal E001 of 2019), and Africa’s Talking Limited (supra), in which claimed deductions were rejected, in relevant part, for want of documentary substantiation unaccompanied by any explanation of the kind offered here. 66.The Tribunal does not depart from the general principle those authorities establish: a claim of business expenditure must be proved by evidence. It is precisely for this reason that the Tribunal makes no finding on the first limb of the Appellant’s case, namely that the disputed expenditure was actually and properly incurred. That repair and maintenance, and security costs for rented residential property are capable in principle of being wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of rental income is not in dispute. What remains absent is proof, in the form of invoices, payment vouchers, contracts, or bank records, and it is that narrow evidentiary gap, not any defect in the legal character of the claimed expenses. 67.The Tribunal makes reference to Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act on production of records: -“59.(1)For the purposes of obtaining full information in respect of the tax liability of any person or class of persons, or for any other purposes relating to a tax law, the Commissioner or an authorised officer may require any person, by notice in writing, to—(a)produce for examination, at such time and place as may be specified in the notice, any documents (including in electronic format) that are in the person's custody or under the person's control relating to the tax liability of any person;(b)furnish information relating to the tax liability of any person in the manner and by the time as specified in the notice; or(c)attend, at the time and place specified in the notice, for the purpose of giving evidence in respect of any matter or transaction appearing to be relevant to the tax liability of any person.” 68.The Tribunal is persuaded that the Appellant did not, at the assessment and objection stages of the dispute, and still does not now have custody or control of the documents required to support its position. Custody or control of documents is a precursor for fulfilment of production of records under Section 59(a) of the Tax Procedures Act. 69.The Tribunal is cognisant that these documents, required to be maintained by the Appellant under Section 54A of the Income Tax Act and Section 23 of the Tax Procedures Act, are substantive transactional records that go to the heart of verifying the existence of and quantity of the disallowed expenses underlying the assessments. In their absence, the Respondent was entitled, under Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act, to issue an assessment to the best of its judgement on the information available to it, and the Tribunal does not fault the Respondent for having done so on the material before it at the time. 70.A best-judgement assessment is, however, provisional on the state of the record when it is made; it does not foreclose a properly explained opportunity to complete that record where, as here, a bona fide and independently corroborated impediment to compliance has been shown. 71.The presumption of correctness attaching to the Respondent’s assessment, which stands until displaced by competent and relevant evidence from the taxpayer, accordingly remains unperturbed on the present record, and the Tribunal is not in a position to find, as the Appellant urges, that the disputed expenses were properly deductible. Nor, however, should the Respondent’s confirmation of the assessments be allowed to stand as final where the Appellant has shown reasonable cause, independently corroborated, for its inability to produce the underlying records within the objection timelines. 72.The just course, and the one that best serves the object of tax dispute resolution as envisioned in the Tax Procedures Act of ensuring assessments are made on complete information, is to remit the matter to the Respondent for an informed Objection decision to be made after its sight of the outstanding records, which the Tribunal will direct the Appellant to produce with urgency. 73.Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent was not justified in confirming the Income tax additional assessments without having had the opportunity to consider the records the Appellant was, for the reasons found above, unable to place before it at the objection stage. Final Decision 74.The upshot of the above analysis is that the Tribunal finds that the Appeal is merited. The Tribunal accordingly proceeds to issue the following Orders:a.The Appeal be and is hereby allowed.b.The Objection decision dated 8th May 2025 be and is hereby set aside.c.The matter be and is hereby remitted back to the Respondent to issue a considered Objection decision.d.The Appellant be and is hereby ordered to provide to the Respondent with original or certified copies of documents to support its Objection within thirty (30) days from the delivery of this Judgment.e.The Respondent be and is hereby ordered to consider the documents provided by the Appellant and issue a fresh Objection decision within sixty (60) days of being provided the documents by the Appellant.f.Each party to bear its own costs. 75.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026.……………………………..….ROBERT M. MUTUMACHAIRMAN……………………………… ……JIMMY M. MALLA MEMBER……………………………DR. TIMOTHY B. VIKIRUMEMBER……………………………GLORIA A. OGAGAMEMBER