[2023] KETAT 1018 (KLR)

Shop and Deliver Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 129 of 2022) [2023] KETAT 1018 (KLR) (8 September 2023) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2023] KETAT 1018 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Tax Appeal Tribunal

Tax Appeal 129 of 2022

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

September 8, 2023

Between

Shop And Deliver Limited

Appellant

and

The Commissioner Of Domestic Taxes

Respondent

Judgment

Background 1. The appellant is licensed as a bookmaker and gaming operator in Kenya under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act(Chapter 131 of the laws of Kenya) (the BLGA). It offers various betting and gaming products in its own right, including sports betting, jackpot games and casino games.

2. The respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, 1995. Under Section 5 (1) of the Act, the Kenya Revenue Authority is an agency of the Government for collecting and receiving of all tax revenue. Further, under Section 5(2) of the Act, concerning the performance of its functions under subsection (1) the Authority is mandated to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Parts 1 & 2 of the First Schedule to the Act to assess, collect and account for all revenues under those laws.

3. The issue in dispute herein arose when the respondent conducted an audit on the appellant’s tax affairs in relation to Corporation tax, Pay As You Earn, Betting tax, Withholding tax (WHT) on winnings, WHT on income tax and Digital Service tax for the period 2017 to 2020.

4. The respondent subsequently issued the appellant with an assessment dated October 21, 2021 on the basis of the findings of the tax audit.

5. The appellant objected to the respondent’s taxassessment through a letter dated November 22, 2021.

6. The respondent issued an objection decision through a letter dated 24 December 2021 where it confirmed the tax assessment on WHT on winnings for the amount of Kshs. 3,152,420,469. 00.

7. The appellant being dissatisfied with the objection decision filed a Notice of Appeal at this Honourable Tribunal on January 24, 2022.

The Appeal 8. The appellant’s Appeal as stated in the Memorandum of Appeal dated the February 7, 2022 and filed on the 9th February 2022 was premised on the following grounds:a.The respondent erred in law and in fact in issuing a confirmed Withholding tax (WHT) assessment against the appellant in relation to an issue that had already been settled by the Honourable Tribunal in TAT No. 304 of 2019 (as consolidated with TAT No. 141 of 2019; TAT No. 175 of 2019; TAT No. 198 of 2019; TAT No. 200 of 2019; TAT No. 265 of 2019; TAT No. 302 of 2019; and TAT No. 305 of 2019) the Consolidated Appeal).b.The respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to appreciate that the rule of strict interpretation of taxation statutes require that “winnings” as defined under the Income Tax Act, chapter 470, Laws of Kenya (the ITA) does not include the stake.c.The respondent erred in law and in fact by assessing WHT on the stake when taxes are due only on the receipt of income pursuant to the ITA.d.The respondent erred in law and in fact by assessing WHT on “winnings” for the period January and February 2019 which is within the assessed period of the years 2019 and 2020, and which period was already assessed and subsequently determined in the consolidated Appeal.e.The respondent erred in law and in fact by assessing WHT on “winnings” for the period prior to November 7, 2019 as if it was tax due and payable by the appellant while in fact the WHT liability lay with the punter during that period.f.The respondent erred in law and in fact by charging cumulative penalties for the amount of KES 476,924,404 on the Appellant’s alleged principal tax liability contrary to the provisions of Rule 17A of the Income tax (Withholding Tax) Rules, 2001.

The Appellant’s Case 9. The appellant has grounded its case on the Statement of Facts dated February 7, 2022 and filed on February 9, 2022 together with the annexures thereto, the Written Submissions dated and filed on the January 27, 2023 and the Supplementary written Submissions dated May 3, 2023 and filed on May 8, 2023.

10. The appellant argued its case under the following general sub- headings:

i. Whether the taxation of winnings was already settled by the tribunal in the judgment dated 6th November 2019 which remains valid as at the date of this appeal. 11. The appellant stated that it had previously filed an Appeal in relation to WHT on winnings for various periods between the years 2018 and 2019 in TAT No. 141 of 2019 and it was consolidated by consent with other appeals by consent on the July 12, 2019 whereupon it was agreed that TAT Appeal No. 304 of 2019 (Pevans East Africa Limited v Commission of Domestic Taxes) would be the test suit in relation to the various appeals filed by the betting companies.

12. The appellant averred that the respondent was wrong to issue an assessment against the appellant demanding WHT on the gross pay-outs (inclusive of the stake) when the Tribunal had already held in its Consolidated Appeal judgment that the definition of winnings does not include the amounts staked by the punter.

13. The appellant further averred that the Judgment in the said Consolidated Appeal remains valid because it has neither been stayed and or set aside by the High Court as at the date of filing the present Appeal. It stated that the Tribunal held as follows in the said Appeal:“74. The Tribunal notes that at no time prior to this case did the Legislature explicitly or implicitly intimate that winnings either in theITAor theBLGAshould include stakes or have the same meaning as gross pay –out. Furthermore, if the intention was to include stakes in the definition of winnings, the Legislature, which has never fallen short of words, would have specifically stated so, as it has done in section 34 of ITA……75. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal makes a finding that winnings as stipulated in the ITA refers to Pay-outs by the licensee but does not include amounts stakes by the bettor.’ (Emphasis by the Appellant).

14. It stated that the issue in dispute in the present Appeal and in the Consolidated Appeal are identical on all fours because the parties are the same, the issue in dispute is the same and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. That as such, it was its view that the Judgment in the consolidated Appeal was directly applicable to the present Appeal and hence the reasons for its prayers that the respondent’s objection decision be set aside for the reason that the issue in dispute had already been heard and determined by this Tribunal.

15. The appellant further stated that the respondent had filed an appeal against the decision in TAT Appeal No. 304 of 2019 (Pevans East Africa Limited v Commission of Domestic Taxes) to the High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. E003 of 2019 and the court did not issue a stay against the decision of the Tribunal.

ii. Whether the ITA and the rule of strict interpretation provide that the term “winnings” does not include stakes placed by a punter 16. The appellant averred that the term “winnings” as defined in the English dictionary and under strict interpretation of Section 2 of the ITA does not include stakes placed by a punter because winnings are earned over and above the stake. That this was more so because “winnings” are deemed in the context of betting and gaming activities to constitute gains in the form of money that a player is entitled to, over and above what they have staked. It supported this argument with the English case of McCollom v Wrightson (1976) 3 All ER 257.

iii. Whether WHT is applicable on income received and not on capital invested by a taxpayer under the ITA 17. The appellant averred that WHT is an income tax which is chargeable on income received and not on capital that is invested by a taxpayer, and that subjecting the stakes to WHT as proposed by the respondent would bring both the profit(winnings) earned by a punter and the investment that generates the winning being the stake contrary to section 10 (1) (g) and 3(2) of the ITA.

18. The appellant averred therefore, that the respondent’s actions to tax the stake is contrary to the essential core and purpose of income tax which is to only tax income. That it should be noted that in Kenya, capital is not taxed as only gains or profits in the form of income are taxable.

iv. Whether the respondent was wrong to issue an assessment on a period that was already subject to dispute before this Tribunal 19. The appellant argued under this head, that the respondent is prohibited from assessing the same period twice and that demanding taxes over the same period in relation to the same taxpayer amounted to double taxation.

20. It was its argument that the assessment related to WHT winnings for the periods 2019 and 2020 that had previously been assessed for the periods January to February 2019 amounting to Kshs 587,626,960. That the issue of this assessment was determined by this Honourable Tribunal in TAT No. 431 of 2019.

v. Why WHT cannot be demanded from the appellant as if it was tax due and payable by it for the period prior to 7th November 2019 21. The appellant asserted that the respondent could not demand WHT from it for the period prior to November 2019 because the Section 35(6) of the ITA did not provide for a payer to be liable where it is alleged that they did not deduct or remit WHT to the respondent as if it was tax due and payable by the payer.

22. In its view, WHT liability in this case lay with the payee (in this case the punters) and not on the payer (the Appellant). It concluded that this position only changed in 2019 when the Finance Act, 2019 re-introduced the provision to the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 at Section 39A with effect from 7th November 2019 which now provided that where a payer who is required to deduct and remit WHT to the respondent fails to do so, the WHT may be collected from them as if it were tax due and payable by them.

vi. Whether penalties for failure to correctly account for WHT is capped at Kshs 1 million pursuant to the Income Tax (Withholding Tax) Rules, 2001 23. The appellant averred that the respondent was wrong to charge cumulative penalties for the amount of Kshs 476,924,404 on the Appellant’s alleged principal tax liability contrary to the provisions of rule 17A of the Income Tax (Withholding Tax) Rules, 2001 (the WHT Rules.)

24. It submitted that rule 17A of the WHT Rules provides that where a person fails to deduct or remit WHT to the respondent, the respondent may impose a penalty equal to 10% of the amount of the tax involved, subject to a maximum penalty of Kshs 1 million.

vii. On whether the honourable Tribunal should disregard the new issue by the respondent that was not previously pleaded. 25. The appellantsubmitted that the respondent’s entire Written Submissions were premised on an issue that it had not pleaded in its Statement of Facts in response to the Appeal. It averred that it is now trite that parties are bound by their pleadings and as such should not be allowed to present or argue new issues that are outside their pleadings. It supported this position with the cases of:a.Yang Guang Property Design and Manufacturing Limited vs China Wu Yi Company (K) Limited [2021] eKLRb.Dakianga Distributions Limited(k) Limited vs Kenya Seed Company Limited(2015) eKLR

26. It was its view that allowing the respondent to sneak new issues at the submissions stage:a.Would deny it an opportunity to present its defence in regard to the new issues raisedb.Would result in miscarriage of justicec.Offers respondent unfair advantage against it.d.Contravene cardinal principles of natural justice.e.Would result in adjudication of a dispute that was never presented by pleadings before the Tribunal.

27. It thus urged the Tribunal to ignore the new issues that had been presented by the respondent at the submissions stage.

28. The appellantwas granted leave by the Tribunal to file Supplementary written Submissions that were filed on May 8, 2023 and it urged the following two grounds:

viii. Whether section 52 (2) of The Tax Procedures Act, 2015 applies to the preset Appeal 29. The appellantflagged this as the new issue that had been brought by the respondent at the submission stage. It then proceeded to submit on it as follows on a without prejudice basis:a.That section 52 (2) of the TPA does not apply to the present appeal because it had objected to the respondent’s entire assessment through its objection letter dated dated November 22, 2021. b.That its inability to pay Kshs. 1,184,786. 00 was because the respondent did not or failed to amend the ledger on iTax to enable it pay the right amount that was due once the available credit had been taken into account.c.That the respondent had also admitted in its letter dated December 24, 2021 that the issue which was making this payment difficult was on its side in the iTax system which did not reflect the correct amount payable. That a reconciliation was necessary on its end to ensure that the correct amount reflected to enable the appellant to make payment.

30. Based on the above assertions, the appellant submitted that it should not be penalized for the respondent's lethargy when it failed to carry out the reconciliations that it had undertaken to do, so as to make it possible for the appellant to make the payments in the iTax portal.

31. It was its further submission that the respondent had admitted that this issue which it now seeks to anchor its entire case is a matter that it had described in its objection decision as “not a matter under the purview of section 51 of the Tax Procedure Act”

32. It urged the Tribunal not to allow the respondent to probate and reprobate by stating on one hand that the matter was not a matter capable of being objected against under Section 51 of the TPA, and on the other, claiming that the matter should be governed by Section 52 of the TPA which is a progression of Section 51 of the TPA.

Appellant's Prayers 33. By reasons of the foregoing grounds, the appellant prayed for orders against the respondent that:a.The objection decision of the respondent contained in the letter dated December 24, 2021 in relation to the WHT on winnings assessment of Kshs 3,152,420,469. 00 be annulled and set aside in its entirety.b.The respondent be refrained from enforcing against the appellant its demand of the assessed amount of Kshs 3,152,420,469. 00. c.The Appeal be allowed with costs to the appellant; andd.Any other orders that the honourable Tribunal may deem fit.

Respondent’s Case 34. The respondent has grounded its case on the Statement of Facts dated and filed on the March 9, 2022 and the Written Submissions dated and filed on February 14, 2023.

35. The respondent stated that in the course of its investigations into the affairs the Appellant, it compared the appellant’s Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) declared as per the income tax returns for the tax period under review to the Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) declared as per the Betting Control and Licensing Board (BCLB) returns and noted an under declaration of revenue.

36. The respondent averred that the appellant underpaid Withholding tax on Winnings by calculating the Withholding tax on Winning using payouts by the licensee but did not include the amount staked by the bettor. That is to say, the difference between gross payout and the stakes placed by the punter instead of the gross payout to the punter.

37. The respondent averred further that this under-declared revenue is what was used to calculate the betting tax.

38. It was also its position that the appellant had over-claimed sports sponsorship expenses limit laid by the Cabinet and also claimed expenses relating to services that attract withholding tax.

39. The respondent averred that:a.The appellant had failed to raise an objection on the penalties thus cannot bring the issue before the Tribunalb.The Finance Act2018 amended the definition of the winnings in Section 2 of the Income Tax Act CAP 470 of the Laws of Kenya to mean: -“winnings “includes winnings of any kind and a reference to the amount or the payment of winning shall be construed accordingly;c.The interpretation of “winning” in Section 2 of theITA refers to the gross payout to the punter and does not exclude the stakes as alluded by the Appellant.d.The Judgment in Tax Appeal Tribunal Case Number 304 of 2019 was appealed against at the High Court and is still pending, thus the issue of interpretation of “winnings” in Section 2 of the income tax Act Cap 470 of the laws of Kenya is not yet settled as alleged by the Appellant.e.The appellant did not state in its objection that the additional withholding income tax for the months January and February 2019 had been previously assessed thus cannot raise this issue at the Appeal stage.f.the appellant cannot raise the issue of penalties at the Appeal stage as this was not raised during the objection.

40. Based on the above arguments it stated that it objection decision was sound in law and should be upheld by the Tribunal.

41. The respondent submitted as hereunder in its Written Submissions filed on February 14, 2023:

42. It admitted that the only remaining issues in dispute in the Appeal were in regards to:-a.Withholding tax for winnings; andb.Withholding income tax;

43. On the subject of Withholding income tax, The respondent argued that the appellant had stated that while the principal withholding income tax assessed and payable is Kshs. 89,993,391. 00, the total assessment done in the Itax portal is Kshs. 126,632,450. 00, meaning that the ITax assessment erroneously omitted the amount of Kshs, 36,750,399. 00 already paid to which proof had already been tendered.

44. It was its argument that this amounted to admission of tax and that the tax admitted to the tune of Kshs 1,184,786. 00 had not been paid nor had the appellant entered into an arrangement on how it would be paid.

45. The respondent cited Section 52(2) of the TPA to argue that the Appellant's failure to pay the tax that was not in dispute meant that this Appeal had not been validly lodged. It relied on the following cases to buttress this point:a.TAT 306 of 2021 Seletrack Consultants Ltd vs Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcementb.TAT 164 of 2018, Mobius Motors(K) Ltd vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes.c.TAT 153 of 2016, Sea Submarine communications vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes

46. It was its position that the argument by the appellant that it could not input the amount payable in the system was never pleaded in the Memorandum of Appeal and as such it could not be raised at this point because parties are bound by their pleadings.

47. It posited that the Tribunal had already ruled on cases where taxpayers blame the simba system for their failure to comply with the law. In this regard it cited the case TAT No 474 of 2020 National Bank of Kenya Ltd vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, where TAT dismissed a claim by a taxpayer who had lodged its claims under the wrong provisions and argued that iTax portal had failed to create an appropriate file for carrying the forward payments.

48. Based on the foregoing, the respondent prayed that the Tribunal finds that:a.The respondent’s Objection decision dated December 24, 2021 was proper in law and the same be upheld.b.The Withholding income taxes of Kshs 3,152,420,469 are due and owingc.This Appeal be dismissed with costs.

Issues for Determination 49. The Tribunal having carefully considered the pleadings filed and the evidence tendered through documentation is of the view that the Appeal herein crystallizes into the following issues for its determination:a.Whether the respondent pleaded new issues in its Written Submission and the consequences thereof.b.Whether the appellant's Notice of Appeal was validly lodged.c.Whether the respondent erred in its assessment of withholding income tax and WHT on winnings.

Analysis And Detrmination a. Whether the respondent pleaded new issues in its Written Submission and the consequences thereof. 50. The appellant's argument under this head was that the respondent ambushed it by introducing new ground of defence in its Statement of Facts filed on the March 9, 2022. It was its view that the entire content of the said written submission was not been pleaded in its Statement of Facts in response to the Appeal.

51. The respondent did not file any Supplementary Submissions to offer a rebuttal to this assertion.

52. The respondent’s Statement of Facts filed on the 9th March 2022 and written submissions filed on the 14th of February 2023 identified two issues for determination, to wit:a.Whether the additional withholding income tax assessments on winnings was proper in law?b.Whether the Objection decision dated 24th December 2021 was proper in law?

53. It then proceeded to buttress these two issues by arguing that the correct interpretation of winnings under Section 2 of the ITA refers to gross payouts to the punter and does not exclude stakes. It then concluded that its impugned objection decision was proper in law because it applied this interpretation of ‘winnings’ which include the gross payouts.

54. The issue of validity of the Notice of Appeal under Section 52(2) of theTPA was not mentioned and or alluded to in the entire body and breath of the said Statement of Facts.

55. The respondent admitted in its Written submission filed on the February 14, 2023, that the issue in dispute in the Appeal was on withholding income tax and WHT on winnings. However, unlike what was contained in its Statement of Facts the content of its Written submission did not touch on the tax-ability of these two heads of tax. It instead delved solely on the issue of validity of the Appellant's Appeal under Section 52(2) of the ITA.

56. The merits of its arguments as raised in its Statement of Facts were completely abandoned and they thus remained ‘un-argued’, only the issue of validity of Appeal was argued in the said submissions.

57. In other words, whereas the appellant had filed its written submission on the basis of the defence that had been presented by the respondent in its Statement of Facts, the respondent on its part did not bother to respond to the Appellant's case. It instead introduced a new ground of defence of validity at the submission stage and argued it in the entire breadth of its submissions.

58. The Tribunal is thus invited to decide whether the respondent’s action is fair or lawful. On this, it is guided by the decision of the High Court in Republic v Chairman Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another ex parte Zapkass Consulting and Training Limited & another [2014] eKLR in which the court held that:“The Applicant, the respondents and the Interested Party all introduced new issues in their submissions. Submissions are not pleadings. There is no evidence by way of affidavits to support the submissions. New issues raised by way of submissions are best ignored.” (Emphasis Added)

59. The Court of Appeal also stated as follows in Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi vs. Mwangi Stephen Muriithi & Another [2014] eKLR“Submissions cannot take the place of evidence”.

60. It is thus apparent that submissions simply help parties to concretise their case to explain their pleadings better with a view to win the Tribunal’s decision. Submissions are not evidence on which a case is decided. Submission only find their basis from the pleadings, they cannot stand on their own or be used to introduce new grounds of appeal or defence which were bereft in the initial pleadings.

61. The principle behind this rule is that parties in litigation are required to delimit the clarity and precision of the real issues in dispute in their pleadings. This way all parties get a fair chance to present their cases without being ambushed with new facts or issues which were never brought to their attention during trial and for which they did not prepare or have the chance to present evidence. This in turn creates certainty and fairness in litigation and hence the famous mantra in legal practice that ‘each party is bound by its pleadings’.

62. In the premises, the Tribunal therefore, finds and holds that the new issues pleaded by the respondent in its Written submissions filed on February 14, 2023 be and are hereby specifically deemed struck out or ignored from the text of the respondent’s submissions.

b) Whether the appellant's Notice of Appeal was validly lodged. 63. The respondent’s arguments on the validity of the Appellant's Notice of Appeal was introduced through the Written submissions filed on February 14, 2023 which has since been deemed struck out from the text of the submissions. This issue has thus been rendered moot by the Tribunal’s decision on issue (a) above. In any event it has to be appreciated that a proper determination on such an issue would have called for specific evidence being adduced on the part of the parties.

C. Whether the respondent erred in its assessment of Withholding Income Tax and WHT on Winnings. 64. The crux of this dispute is on the definition of ‘winnings’ under theITA. More precisely the issue is whether winnings refers to gross payouts to the punter including stakes as is preferred by the respondent, or whether the correct definition is one that exclude stakes as is preferred by the Appellant.

65. The parties herein agree that this issue had been heard and determined by this Tribunal vide TAT Appeal No. 304 of 2019 (Pevans East Africa Limited v Commission of Domestic Taxes) wherein both parties were involved in the hearing and determination of the Consolidated Appeal. However, the main contention by the respondent is that it has since filed an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision to the High Court and it is for this reason that it holds the view that the matter of interpretation of “winnings” under theITA is not settled.

66. It is settled in law that a decision of a judicial body that is clothed with jurisdiction settles an issue in dispute between the parties until a superior court stays and or overturns the previous decision.

67. As to what constitutes “winnings” under the Income Tax Act (chapter 470 of the Laws of Kenya) (“the ITA”), this Tribunal concluded in TAT Appeal No. 304 of 2019 (Pevans East Africa Limited v Commission of Domestic Taxes) that winnings as stipulated in the ITA refers to pay-outs by the licensee but does not include amounts staked by the bettor.

68. Therefore, as it is, the definition of the Tribunal in regard to winnings in TAT Appeal No. 304 of 2019 (Pevans East Africa Limited v Commission of Domestic Taxes) remains valid and hence the authoritative definition of “winnings” under the ITA until it is overturned on appeal.

69. More significantly, the respondent’s Appeal to the High Court being Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Pevans East Africa Limited & 6 others (Tax Appeal E003 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 10392 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (13 May 2022) (Judgment) was determined in a judgment that was delivered by Justice Majanja on the 13th of March 2022. The decision of the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s definition of the term “winnings’ under the ITA when it stated as follows:“This buttresses the point that had Parliament intended to define “winnings” to include both the wager and the profit, nothing would have been easier than for it so state just like they did in the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2018 and the Excise Duty Act, 2015. It is clear that strictest interpretation that favours the taxpayer, in this case the respondents in respect of the definition of “winnings” in that it is the payment made to the punter less the amount staked. It is this amount that is subject to tax and what the respondents are obligated to deduct and remit to the commissioner.I am therefore in agreement with the Tribunal’s conclusion on its definition of “winnings”. (Emphasis Added)

70. The Tribunal has also noted that the respondent argued in its objection decision that it had assessed its WHT against the appellant on the basis of winnings inclusive of stake because the matter was still pending before the High Court. This matter has now been settled. Considering that the Tribunal has not been presented with an order of stay of implementation of the High Court’s decision and or a contrary decision from the Court of Appeal, then it follows that the authoritative definition of the term taxable “winnings” under theITA only relate to payments made to the punter less the amount staked.

71. It would thus be unconstitutional and contra statute for the Tribunal to arrive at a different holding from that of the High Court on this issue. Parties appearing before the Tribunal are similarly encouraged to read and be guided by the previous decisions of the Tribunal and the superior courts on similar issues to limit the filing of vexing appeals or of more concern the respondent ought to desist from raising tax assessments and issuing confirmation decisions on tax heads where both the Tribunal and the superior courts have had a conclusive and concurring decisions.

72. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Tribunal finds and holds that the respondent erred when it defined and applied the term ‘winnings’ to include the amount staked in assessing the Appellant's WHT liability on amounts including the punter’s stake.

Final Decision 73. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that this Appeal has merit and accordingly proceeds to make the following orders;a.The Appeal be and is hereby allowed.b.The respondent‘s Objection decision dated December 24, 2021 be and is hereby set aside.c.Each party to bear its own costs.

74. It is so ordered.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023. ERIC NYONGESA WAFULACHAIRMAN..........DR. RODNEY O. OLUOCHMEMBER..........ABRAHAM KIPROTICHMEMBER..........CYNTHIA MAYAKAMEMBER..........EUNICE NG’ANG’AMEMBER..........BERNADETTE GITARIMEMBER..........