[2025] KEHC 10677 (KLR)
The court found that the issuance of the agency notice before the lapse of the appeal period was contrary to Section 42(14) of the Tax Procedures Act, which restricts such enforcement actions until the taxpayer has either failed to appeal within the prescribed period or the appeal has been determined. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 10677 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Nastaceen Trading Company Limited; Respondent: Commissioner of Domestic Taxes
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Income Tax Appeal E136 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Income Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Agency Notice Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of agency notice allowed, conditional on deposit of security.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Agency Notice, Stay of Execution, Security for Stay, Tax Appeals, Tax Procedure Act, Enforcement of Tax Decisions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nastaceen Trading Company Limited
Appellant
Commissioner of Domestic Taxes
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Agency Notice Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to issue an agency notice before the appellant's right of appeal had lapsed.
- 2 Whether a temporary stay of the agency notice should be granted pending appeal.
- 3 What amount of security, if any, should be deposited by the appellant as a condition for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issuance of the agency notice before the lapse of the appeal period was contrary to Section 42(14) of the Tax Procedures Act, which restricts such enforcement actions until the taxpayer has either failed to appeal within the prescribed period or the appeal has been determined. The court acknowledged that both parties were amenable to a stay, with the only dispute being the quantum of security. Balancing the interests of both parties and considering the appellant's financial capacity, the court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of the agency notice on condition that the appellant deposits KES 30,000,000 as security with the Kenya Revenue Authority within 30...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of agency notice allowed, conditional on deposit of security.
Orders
- Stay of the Agency Notice dated 26th May 2025 issued to Kenya Commercial Bank is granted, pending determination of the appeal.
- The appellant shall deposit KES 30,000,000 with the Kenya Revenue Authority as security within 30 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Nastaceen Trading Company Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Income Tax Appeal E136 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 10677 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (3 July 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 10677 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Commercial and Tax
Income Tax Appeal E136 of 2025
F Gikonyo, J
July 3, 2025
Between
Nastaceen Trading Company Limited
Appellant
and
The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes
Respondent
Ruling
AGENCY NOTICE ISSUED BEFORE APPEAL TIME LAPSE 1. The appellant filed the notice of motion dated 9th June 2025, seeking that pending the hearing of the application inter partes, a temporary order be issued staying and/ or suspending the Agency Notice dated 26th May 2025 issued to Kenya Commercial Bank requiring the appellant’s bankers to pay the sum of KES. 498,012,849. 00 or any other enforcement action taken by the respondent whether by itself, its officers, employees and/ or agents, be stopped from taking any steps to collect any money pursuant to the said Agency Notice.
2. The basis for the prayer is that the respondent issued the agency notice before the appellant exhausted its right of appeal.
3. The issue is whether the temporary stay of the agency notice pending the hearing of the application should be granted.
4. At the mention of the matter on 20th June 2025, Ms. Almadi for the respondent opposed the application. She asserted that the agency notices were placed as taxes crystallised. She urged that the applicant provide security.
5. Mr. Mburu stated that the appellant had a right of appeal and time had not lapsed when they issued the agency notices. He urged the court to lift the agency notices since the appellant has now appealed. He indicated that the appellant wishes to pursue alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
6. Ms. Almadi maintained that while the respondent is also willing to pursue ADR, the provision of security is key because KES. 498,012,849. 00 is owing. She indicated that the respondent is willing to accept 30% of the amount as security in cash.
7. Mr. Mburu was firm that the appellant cannot raise more than KES. 10,000,000/- as it does not owe more than that.
Analysis and determination 8. It appears there is no contest on the granting of stay of the Agency Notice, except, the issue of the amount of security.
9. But, in such matters the purport of Section 42 of the Tax Procedures Act will always come to bear. In particular, Section 42 (14) of the Tax Procedures Act, which provides as follows: -“(14)The Commissioner shall not issue a notice under this section unless—SUBPARA (a) the taxpayer has defaulted in paying an instalment under section 33(2);(b)the Commissioner has raised an assessment and the taxpayer has not objected to or challenged the validity of the assessment within the prescribed period;(c)the taxpayer has not appealed against an assessment specified in an objection decision within the prescribed timelines;(d)the taxpayer has made a self-assessment and submitted a return but has not paid the taxes due before the due date lapsed; or(e)the taxpayer has not appealed against an assessment specified in a decision of the Tribunal or court.”
10. The prohibition in this provision applies, inter alia, to the period when a party should file appeal, and during the pendency of the appeal in the Tribunal or court.
11. There is need to interrogate this provision in depth to establish its implication, application or relevance to the remedy of stay of execution pending appeal in the High Court.
12. The foregoing notwithstanding, the appellant is willing to deposit security pending appeal in the sum of KES. 10,000,000.
13. The disputed tax is KES. 498,012,849. 00. The respondent proposed a deposit respondent of 30% of the disputed tax which comes to KES. 149,403,854. 7 as security.
14. In the upshot, I stay the Agency Notice dated 26th May 2025 issued to Kenya Commercial Bank requiring the appellant’s bankers to pay the sum of KES. 498,012,849. 00 or any other enforcement action taken by the respondent whether by itself, its officers, employees and/ or agents.
15. In light of the proposal by the parties, I direct the appellant to deposit, within 30 days, a sum of KES. 30,000,000/- with KRA to hold as security pending determination of the appeal.
16. The hearing of the appeal be fast-tracked.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025. ............................F. GIKONYO M.JUDGEIn the presence of: -Ms. Chepsiror for respondentMburu for appellant absentKinyua C/A