[2024] KETAT 1149 (KLR)

Liquid Telecommunications Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E587 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1149 (KLR) (1 August 2024) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2024] KETAT 1149 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Tax Appeal Tribunal

Tax Appeal E587 of 2023

RM Mutuma, Chair, M Makau, EN Njeru, B Gitari & AM Diriye, Members

August 1, 2024

Between

Liquid Telecommunications Kenya Limited

Appellant

and

Commissioner of Domestic Taxes

Respondent

Judgment

1. The Appellant is a private limited company incorporated in Kenya whose principal business activity is providing telecommunication solutions to various clients.

2. The Respondent is the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, appointed under and in accordance with Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act. The Authority is responsible for the assessment, collection, accounting, and general administration of tax revenue on behalf of the Government of Kenya.

3. The dispute in this Appeal arose when the Appellant made applications for refund for the year of income 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Respondent reviewed the claim after which it noted that some of the claims by the Appellant related to credits under Section 42 of the Income Tax Act Cap 470 that relates to credits under special arrangements while the credit claimed by the Appellant had no relation to said section of the law.

4. Consequently, the Respondent raised additional assessment vide a letter dated 29th January 2021. The Appellant objected to the assessment on 25th February 2021. Thereafter, the Respondent issued its Objection Decision dated 1st August 2023, rejecting the refund claim.

5. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent’s decision, appealed to this Tribunal via a Notice of Appeal dated 31st August 2023 and filed on 14th September 2023.

The Appeal 6. The Appellant in its Memorandum of Appeal dated and filed 14th September 2023 set out the following grounds of appeal:a.For the period 2016 to 2018, the Respondent erred in law and fact by disallowing refund claims that had already been allowed by operation of the law.b.For the period 2019, the Respondent erred in law and fact in issuing its refund decision out of time contrary to the provisions of Section 47 (3) of the Tax Procedures Act (Tax Procedures Act).c.The Respondent’s decision amounts to a violation of the Appellant’s legitimate expectation.d.The Respondent has erred in law and fact by misapplying itself in its findings and attempting to enforce a tax decision which lacks a legal and factual basis.e.Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Respondent erred in law and fact by ignoring the findings of its audit which among other things confirmed that the Appellant was in a tax loss position during the period under review and therefore the tax refunds claimed were valid.

The Appellant’s Case 7. The Appellant set out its case on its;i.Statement of Facts dated and filed on 14th September 2023 together with the documents attached thereto; and,ii.Written submissions dated and filed on 28th March 2024.

8. The Appellant contended that on various dates between August 2016 to August 2019, the Appellant through iTax requested, pursuant to Section 47 (1) of the Tax Procedures Act 2015, for refund of income tax overpayments for the period 2015 to 2019.

9. On 29 January 2021, the Appellant averred that the Respondent issued assessments in respect to the Appellant’s Corporate Income Tax credits claimed under Section 42 of the Income Tax Act (ITA). These assessments were based on understanding that the assessed amounts had already been offset against the refund amounts applied for by the Appellant. The Appellant objected to the said assessments on 25th February 2021.

10. According to the Appellant, there was no further correspondence or Objection Decision issued by the Respondent in relation to the Appellant’s Notice of Objection on the assessments.

11. Further, the Appellant avowed that the Respondent did not request for information in relation to the Appellant’s refund claims until 6th September 2022, when the Respondent issued a Notice of Intention to Audit letter to the Appellant. According to the Appellant, its objection of 25th February 2021 had been allowed by operation of Section 51 (11) of the Tax Procedures Act.

12. As for the refunds due, the Appellant stated that it had also marked the applications for refund as allowed in accordance with Section 47 (3) of the Tax Procedures Act so the expectation was that the Respondent would proceed to effect the refunds in line with Section 47 (2) of the Tax Procedures Act. However, to the Appellant’s surprise, more than 3 years later, the Respondent through a letter dated 1st August 2023 purported to reject the Appellant’s tax refund claims fully.

13. Concerning the first ground of Appeal, the Appellant’s case is that for the period 2016 to 2018, the Respondent erred in law and fact by disallowing refund claims that had already been allowed by operation of the law. The Appellant stated that through iTax assessments issued on 29th January 2021, the Respondent adjusted the Appellant’s tax credits claimed under Section 42 of the TPA, of the return and alleged that the resultant assessment had been offset against refund amounts applied for by the Appellant on iTax.

14. The Appellant partially objected to the assessments on 25th February 2021 where it contested the Respondent’s assessment on grounds that the disallowed amounts had included tax credits of Kshs. 8,087,467. 00 brought forward from the legacy returns for the financial year 2015; and that the disallowed amounts included Withholding Tax (WHT) credits of Kshs. 4,561,360. 00 and Kshs. 1,719,071. 65 for FY 2016 and FY 2017 respectively.

15. The Appellant argued that the Respondent is bound by the provisions of Section 51 (11) of the Tax Procedures Act which provides that;“The Commissioner shall make the objection decision within sixty days from the date of receipt of a valid notice of objection failure to which the objection shall be deemed to be allowed.”

16. According to the Appellant, the Respondent was required to respond to the Appellant’s objection within 60 days that is on or before 27th April 2021 but it failed to do so.

17. The Appellant asserted that the only exception to the 60-day time limit under Section 51 was where the Respondent had requested for additional information in order to assess the objection filed.

18. The Appellant stated that for more than 16 months, the Appellant did not receive a request from the Respondent for additional information until 6th September 2022, when the Respondent issued a Notice of Intention to Audit.

19. In view of the lapse of the statutory time, the Appellant marked the matter as closed and by extension, the expectation was that the Respondent had agreed with the Appellant’s computation of refunds owed under its Objection Notice. The Appellant averred that it was surprised that the Respondent issued a decision over the same matter more than two years down the line.

20. It averred that a legitimate expectation was created when the Respondent failed to issue an Objection Decision by 27th April 2021. The Appellant maintained that the Respondent’s subsequent decision issued on 1st August 2023 was therefore, a violation of its legitimate expectation and the procedures laid out under Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act. The Appellant asserted that it stands to suffer harm if the Respondent’s attempt to re-litigate or reconsider a matter which had already been settled by operation of the law is allowed.

21. With regards to second ground of appeal, the Appellant stated that Respondent erred in law and fact in issuing its refund decision out of time contrary to the provisions of Section 47 (3) of the Tax Procedures Act. It relied upon Section 47 (1) (b) of the Tax Procedures Act which provides that a taxpayer may apply to the Respondent in a prescribed form for a refund tax within five years after the date on which the tax was overpaid. The Appellant averred that its applications for refund were all within the prescribed five years under the law.

22. The Appellant also cited the provisions of Section 47 (2) of the Tax Procedures Act which provides that the Respondent shall ascertain the application for refund within 90 days and in the case of a refund under Section 41 (1) (b) of the TPA, refund the overpaid tax within a period of six months from the date of ascertainment. The Appellant argued that Section 41 (3) of the Tax Procedures Act provides that where the Respondent fails to ascertain and determine a refund application within ninety days, the same shall be deemed ascertained and approved.

23. According to the Appellant, the refund claim was lodged on 30th August 2019. It argued that the Respondent’s notice of intention to audit the refund claim was issued on 6th September 2022 and its decision rejecting the refund claim issued almost 1 year later through a decision dated 1st August 2023.

24. The Appellant stated that the Tax Procedures Act establishes a clear and unambiguous statutory time limit within which the Respondent must issue refund decisions which is a fundamental requirement designed to ensure timely resolution and clarity for taxpayers. The Appellant therefore contends that the Respondent’s decision is time barred having been issued beyond the statutory time limit prescribed.

25. The Appellant argued that the Respondent’s failure to issue its Refund Decision within the stipulated ninety days meant that the Appellant’s application for refund had been allowed by operation of law.

26. The Appellant cited the High Court in the case of Eastleigh Mall Limited vs. Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement Appeal No. E0686 of 2020 eKLR, where the learned judge in his judgement observed that,“If the commissioner is allowed to exercise his discretion and stay without limit before issuing an objection decision, then the taxpayer would be unable to make crucial decisions and plan his/her business properly.”

27. According to the Appellant, the Respondent’s inordinate delay in determining the refund claim is grossly prejudicial to the Appellant and allowing the impugned decision would be in complete disregard to the provisions of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015; aid a party who has exhibited scant respect of the tax procedure rules; amount to shifting goal posts by the Respondent at will; amount to abuse of powers by the Respondent; and that it would result in gross injustice to an innocent taxpayer seeking the protection of the law.

28. With regards to third ground of appeal, the Appellant stated that a legitimate expectation was created when the Respondent failed to issue its decision within the timelines prescribed by Sections 47 and 51 of the Tax Procedures Act. It added that the Respondent’s attempt to reject the refund claim more than two years after the due date is therefore an outright violation of this legitimate expectation and the procedures laid out under the Tax Procedures Act.

29. The Appellant cited De Smith, Woolf & Jowell in “Judicial Review of Administrative Action” 6th Edition Sweet & Maxwell page 609 state that:“A legitimate expectation arises where a person responsible for taking a decision has induced in someone a reasonable expectation that he will receive or retain a benefit of advantage. It is a basic principle of fairness that legitimate expectations ought not to be thwarted. The protection of legitimate expectations is at the root of the constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires predictability and certainty in government's dealings with the public.”

30. The Appellant further relied on the case of Republic vs. Kenya Revenue Authority Ex Parte Aberdare Freight Services Ltd & 2 Others [2004] 2 KLR 530 in which the court stated that:“legitimate expectation is founded upon a basic principle of fairness that legitimate expectations ought not be thwarted.”

31. The Appellant further asserted that legitimate expectation is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law. It relied on Keroche Industries Limited vs. Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others Nairobi (2007] eKLR where the Court held that;“legitimate expectation is based not only on ensuring that legitimate expectations by the parties are not thwarted, but on a higher public interest beneficial to all including the respondent, which is, the value or the need of holding authorities to promises and practices they have made and acted on and by so doing upholding responsible public administration. This in turn enables people affected to plan their lives with a sense of certainty, trust, reasonableness and reasonable expectation. An abrupt change as was intended in this case, targeted at a particular company or industry is certainly abuse of power. Stated simply, legitimate expectation arises for example where a member of the public as a result of a promise or other conduct expects that he will be treated in one way and the public body wishes to treat him or her in a different way.”

32. In support of the fourth ground of appeal, the Appellant stated that the Respondent erred in law and fact by misapplying itself in its findings and attempting to enforce a tax decision, which lacks a legal and factual basis. It relied on Section 51 (10) of the Tax Procedures Act which provides that;“51. Objection to tax decision: (10) an objection decision shall include a statement of findings on the material facts and the reasons for the decision.’’

33. Consequently, the Appellant averred that the Respondent’s decision failed to provide detailed reasons with the basis upon which the Appellant refund claims were rejected.

34. The Appellant cited the case of R vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Ex Parte Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited, the High Court stated as follows:“consistent with the decision I have cited above, the duty of the respondent in assessing tax is to identify transactions or payments that attract tax liability especially where there are objections to such categorisation. Section 35 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act identifies specific types of payments that attract tax, the respondent is obligated by law to state with clarity its claim and state how the transaction falls within the terms of the statute. The respondent cannot exercise its duty like a trawler in the deep seas expecting all the fish by casting its net wide.”

35. Based on the foregoing, the Appellant asserted that the Respondent’s decision in this respect falls below the standard laid down under by the Tax Procedures Act and the courts.

36. In support of fifth ground of appeal, the Appellant cited Section 47 (5) of the Tax Procedures Act which provides that where an application for a refund is determined to be valid, the Respondent shall apply the overpayment in the following order:a.in payment of any other tax owing by the taxpayer under the specific tax law;b.in payment of a tax owing by the taxpayer under any other tax law; andc.any remainder shall be refunded to the taxpayer.

37. The Appellant stated that following the audit exercise on its tax affairs, the Respondent’s workings in its 1st August 2023 confirmed that the Appellant was in a tax loss position and that no tax was due. In view of its tax loss position, the Appellant contends that it had no tax liabilities and was therefore eligible for a tax refund as provided under Section 47 (5) (c) of the Tax Procedures Act.

38. The Appellant in its written submissions identified fives (5) issues for determination,i.Whether the Respondent’s refund decision of 1st August 2023 was out of time;ii.Whether the Respondent disallowed refund claims that had already been allowed by operation of Section 51 (11) of the Tax Procedures Act;iii.Whether the Respondent’s purported decision amounts to a violation of the Appellant’s legitimate expectation;iv.Whether the Respondent’s allegation of outstanding information is valid; and,v.Whether the Appellant was eligible to a tax refund for the period under review.

39. The Appellant relied on the case of Vivo Energy Kenya Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs & Border Control, Kenya Revenue Authority & another (2020], to support the position that the Respondent has a statutory obligation to make Objection Decision within 60 days failure to which the Notice of Objection stands as allowed by operation of law.

40. The Appellant also cited the cases of Keroche Industries Limited vs. Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others Nairobi (2007] eKLR and Republic vs. Kenya Revenue Authority Ex Parte Aberdare Freight Services Ltd & 2 Others (2004] 2 KLR 530 to submit that: legitimate expectation is founded upon a basic principle of fairness that legitimate expectations ought not be thwarted.

41. With regards to keeping records, the Appellant submitted that whereas Section 23 of Tax Procedures Act obligates a taxpayer to maintain records required under any tax law, the Appellant relied on the case of Saj Ceramics Limited vs.Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Appeal No. 465 of 2021 where the Tribunal stated that;“This Tribunal and other Courts have for some time now examined the issue of sufficiency of information provided by a taxpayer to prove that the assessment by the Revenue Authority was wrong. It is now established that in demanding production of documents, the Respondent should be guided by reasonableness to the extent that when it demands for documents that are not prescribed to be kept by the law, it should be guided by industry norms and ask for documents that are ordinarily kept by particular business and not what the taxman in its view believes should have been kept.”

42. Furthermore, the Appellant submitted that the Respondent cannot demand production of documents that are no longer in its possession. In this regard, the Appellant relied on the case of Shreeji Enterprises (K)Limited vs. Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement TAT No. 58 and 189 of 2019 wherein the court stated that;“Although the current tax law provides that the onus of proof lies with the Appellant to prove that tax was paid or that the Respondent's assessment was wrong. In demanding the production of documents which are not prescribed by legislation, the tax authority should be guided by reasonableness, the nature and circumstances of the trader otherwise it would, as it occasionally does, demand information which the trader cannot produce because he does not have.”

Appellant’s Prayers 43. The Appellant prayed for the following:a.The Respondent’s decision dated 1st August 2023 rejecting the Appellant’s refund claims be set aside in its entirety;b.The Appellant’s application tax refund be deemed to be allowed with interest as provided for under the Tax Procedures Act;c.This Appeal be allowed with costs to the Appellant; and,d.Any other remedies that the Honourable Tribunal deems just and reasonable.

The Respondent’s Case 44. The Respondent set out its case on its;i.Statement of Facts dated 19th October 2023 and filed on 23rd October 2023 together with the documents attached thereto; and,ii.Written submissions dated and filed on 14th April 2024.

45. The Respondent relied on Section 47 (2) of the Tax Procedures Act 2015, which provides that the Respondent may, for purposes of ascertaining the validity of the refund claimed, subject the claim to an audit.

46. The Respondent averred that the Appellant was required to adduce documents to ascertain whether the refunds were duly payable but the Appellant failed and/or neglected to furnish the Respondent with said documents. The Respondent stated that Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act 2015 requires the Appellant to provide records to enable it to determine its tax liability. It maintained that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient supporting documents demonstrating that the underlying transaction indeed took place.

47. The Respondent stated the Appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof. It relied on Section 56 of the Tax Procedures Act, the Appellant herein bears the burden to demonstrate that it has discharged a tax liability.

48. The Respondent further relied on Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act further provides:“In a proceeding before the Tribunal, the appellant has the burden of provinga.where an appeal relates to an assessment, that the assessment is excessive; orb.In any other case, that the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently.”

49. The Respondent in its written submissions identified two issues for determination.i.Whether the Respondent’s rejection of the Appellant’s Application for refund was justified; and,ii.Whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proof.

50. On whether the Respondent’s rejection of the Appellant’s Application for refund was justified, the Respondent submitted that the principal reason for the rejection of the Appellant’s VAT refund is that the Appellant failed and/or neglected to submit requisite documents to verify the refund claim.

51. Further, the Respondent submitted that it also gave reasons for rejecting the refund as required under Section 47 (3) of the Tax Procedures Act. Consequently, the Respondent submitted that it was well within its mandate in rejecting the refund.

52. On whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proof, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s refund claim was analysed and recommended for rejection by the Respondent following the audit report findings which revealed that some of the claims by the Appellant related to credits under Section 42 of the Income Tax Act Cap 470 that relates to credits under special arrangements while the credit claimed by the Appellant had no relation to said section of the law. Thus, the claims were declared invalid hence they were disallowed.

53. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant did not furnish sufficient proof to defend its position and to allow the refund, and has equally failed to discharge the same burden before this Honourable Tribunal which is contrary to the provisions of Section 56 of the Tax Procedures Act provides that the burden shall be on the Appellant to prove that a tax decision is incorrect, which the Appellant has failed to do so.

54. The Respondent relied on the South African Supreme Court case of Metcash Trading Limited vs. Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Another Case CCT 3/2000; PZ Cussons East Africa Limited vs. Kenya Revenue Authority (2013) eKLR; and Primarosa Flowers Limited vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (2019) eKLR, to submit that the onus is on the taxpayer in proving that the assessment was excessive by adducing positive evidence which demonstrates that the taxable income on which tax ought to have been levied.

Respondent’s Prayers 55. The Respondent prays that this Honourable Tribunal finds that:a.The Appellant herein does not qualify for the refund claim;b.The Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 1st August 2023 was proper and within the confines of the law; and,c.This Appeal be dismissed with costs as it lacks merit.

Issues for Determination 56. The Tribunal having considered the Memorandum of Appeal, the parties’ Statements of Facts, and submissions, puts forth the following issues for determination:i.Whether the Respondent’s Objection Decision issued on 1st August 2023 was statute time barred under Section 51 (11) of the Tax Procedures Act; and,ii.Whether the Appellant’s claimed refund is due and payable;

Analysis and Findings 57. The Tribunal wishes to analyse the issues as hereunder.

i. Whether the Respondent’s Objection Decision issued on 1st August 2023 was statute time barred under Section 51 (11) of the Tax Procedures Act; 58. The Respondent raised additional assessment on 29th January 2021 which prompted the Appellant to lodged a Notice of Objection to the assessments on 25th February 2021. The Tribunal examined the email correspondence of 26th February 2021 and noted that the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Objection on 26th February 2021.

59. The Tribunal is enjoined to determine whether the Respondent’s decision was issued within the statutory timelines, it follows that the Respondent having issued additional assessments on 29th January 2021, the applicable law is the law as at the time of the assessments.

60. In this regard, Section 51 (11) of the Tax Procedures Act as at the material time provided as follows:(11)The Commissioner shall make the objection decision within sixty days from the date of receipt of—(a)the notice of objection; or(b)Any further information the Commissioner may require from the taxpayer. Failure to which the objection shall be deemed to be allowed.’’

61. Under the aforesaid Section 51 (11) (a) of the TPA, the Respondent was obligated in law to issue the Objection Decision within 60 days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Objection failure to which the objection shall be deemed to be allowed.

62. The Appellant stated that there was no further correspondence in request for further information from the Respondent or an Objection Decision issued by the Respondent in relation to the Appellant’s Notice of Objection on the assessments within the prescribed timelines in law.

63. That the Appellant argued that the Respondent did not make any request for information in relation to the Appellant’s refund claims until 6th September 2022, when the Respondent purported to issued a Notice of Intention to Audit the Appellant’s business.

64. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent did not challenge the above assertion either in its Statement of Facts or through documentary evidence or its written submissions.

65. From the documents provided, the Tribunal observed that there was no evidence that the Respondent made any request for further information to the Appellant prior to the 6th September 2022, over 18 months upon acknowledgement of receipt of the Notice of Objection.

66. Whereas, the Respondent made a request for further information on 6th September 2022, the purport and effect of provisions of Section 51 (11) (b) of the TPA, effectively being able to reset the time within which the Respondent can issue an Objection Decision, cannot apply under the prevailing circumstances as the request ought to have been made within the prescribed timelines therein.

67. The Respondent in its submissions seem to suggest that Appellant’s Objection may have been invalid, thus required documentation to support the same. However, under the provisions of Section 51 (4) of the TPA as it was at the time, the Respondent was required to notify the Appellant immediately of the invalidity of its Objection in writing and require the Appellant to validate the same. The issue has neither been addressed nor has any evidence of compliance with the said provision in law been presented for review and consideration by the Tribunal.

68. The Tribunal is guided by the case of Vivo Energy Kenya Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs & Border Control, Kenya Revenue Authority & another [2020] eKLR the Court held as follows:‘‘(i) A declaration is hereby issued that as a consequence of the Commissioner’s failure to make a decision on the Applicant’s notice of objection dated 8th November, 2016 (and received on 9th November, 2016) within the statutory period of sixty days, the said notice of objection was allowed in terms of Section 51(11) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015. ”

69. The Respondent having failed to issue Objection Decision or request for the documentation from the Appellant within 60 days as provided for under Section 51 (11) (a) and (b) of the Tax Procedures Act respectively, the Appellant’s Notice of Objection dated 25th February 2021 stood allowed by operation of law.

70. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s Objection Decision issued on 1st August 2023 was statute time barred in view of the provisions of Section 51 (11) of the Tax Procedures Act, thus the Appellant’s objection was allowed by operation of the law.

ii. Whether the Appellant’s claimed refund is due and payable; 71. From the documents provided by the Parties to this Appeal, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant lodged its Application for refund of taxes in the sum Kshs. 78,180,148. 00 for the years 2016 to 2019 on various dates between August 2016 to August 2019, the Appellant through iTax requested, pursuant to Section 47 (1) of the Tax Procedures Act 2015.

72. The Respondent thereafter issued a notice of intention to audit on the 6th September 2022 and subsequently issued its assessment on 29th January 2021 which was objected to on 25th February 2021 and an Objection Decision issued on 1st August 2023.

73. The Tribunal further noted that the timelines for issuing the decision on a refund application is provided for under Section 47 (3) of the Tax Procedures Act, which provides that; -“(3)The Commissioner shall notify in writing an applicant under subsection (1) of the decision in relation to the application within ninety days of receiving the application for a refund.”

74. There is no evidence that was submitted that since lodging of the various application spanning from 2015 to 2019 that the Respondent notified the Appellant of its decision to the refund applications on a date earlier than 1st August 2023, which was beyond the period of 90 days provided therein.

75. The Tribunal having made its finding that the Objection Decision that also rejected the Appellant’s refund applications, was issued beyond the statutory period, it follows that the Respondent’s refund decision to which the Appellant sought to object was by operation of the law deemed void and thus the Appellant’s refund application is allowed.

76. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant’s claimed refund is due and payable.

Final Determination 77. The upshot to the foregoing is that the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal is merited and consequently makes the following orders; -a.The Appellant’s Appeal herein be and is hereby allowed;b.The Respondent’s Objection Decision issued on 1st August 2023 rejecting the Appellant's refund claims be and is hereby set aside in its entirety;c.The Respondent to process the Appellant’s refund in the sum of Kshs. 78,180,148. 00 within ninety (90) days of the date of delivery of this judgement in accordance with Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act.d.Each party to bear its own cost.

78. It is so ordered.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024. ROBERT M. MUTUMA - CHAIRPERSONMUTISO MAKAU - MEMBERELISHAH N. NJERU - MEMBERBERNADETTE M. GITARI - MEMBERABDULLAHI DIRIYE - MEMBER