[2023] KETAT 241 (KLR)

[2023] KETAT 241 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the application for review was filed 48 days after the delivery of the ruling, far outside the seven-day period prescribed by section 29A(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. The appellant failed to provide any explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the appellant did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KETAT 241 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Safdar Hussein Ramzanali Valli; Respondent: Commissioner Of Domestic Taxes
Court
Tax Appeal Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Appeal 852 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Tribunal Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
E.N Wafula, Cynthia B. Mayaka, AK Kiprotich
Legal Topics
Review of Tribunal Orders, Out of Time Appeals, Enlargement of Time, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Source Language
en
Tax Law Civil Procedure Review of Tribunal Orders Out of Time Appeals Enlargement of Time Jurisdiction of Tribunal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Safdar Hussein Ramzanali Valli

Appellant

Commissioner Of Domestic Taxes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Tribunal Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the application for review of the Tribunal's ruling was filed within the statutory time limit.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant met the statutory threshold for review under section 29A of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's earlier ruling contained an error apparent on the face of the record.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the application for review was filed 48 days after the delivery of the ruling, far outside the seven-day period prescribed by section 29A(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. The appellant failed to provide any explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not demonstrate the existence of new evidence, a mistake, or an error apparent on the face of the record as required under section 29A(2). The Tribunal concluded that the application was an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined and did not meet the statutory threshold for review. Consequently, the application was found to be incompetent and lacking in merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be and is hereby dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.