[2023] KETAT 532 (KLR)

Vitop Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tribunal Appeal 808 of 2022) [2023] KETAT 532 (KLR) (13 October 2023) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2023] KETAT 532 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Tax Appeal Tribunal

Tribunal Appeal 808 of 2022

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

October 13, 2023

Between

Vitop Limited

Appellant

and

commissioner of Domestic Taxes

Respondent

Judgment

Background 1. The Appellant is a limited liability company incorporated and carrying on business within the Republic of Kenya. Its principal activity is the construction of buildings and civil engineering.

2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under and in accordance with Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, and the Authority charged with the responsibility of among others, assessment, collection, accounting, and the general administration of tax revenue on behalf of the Government of Kenya.

3. The Respondent conducted a review of the Appellant’s returns for the years 2017 to 2020 to ascertain compliance on VAT input tax claims.

4. After reviewing, the Respondent sent a pre-assessment of tax on 13th October 2021 and requested the Appellant to provide supportive documents as stipulated in Section 17 of the VAT Act.

5. On 31st March 2022 the Respondent disallowed the input VAT as well as the purchases in respect of the input VAT claim for Corporation tax purposes.

6. The Appellant lodged an objection notice on 14th April 2022.

7. The Respondent issued an objection decision dated 13th June 2022 confirming the tax due of Kshs 82,760,421. 00

8. The Appellant aggrieved by the Respondent’s objection decision lodged its Notice of Appeal with the Tribunal on 15th July 2022.

The Appeal 9. The Appeal is premised on the following grounds as stated in the Appellant’s Memorandum of Appeal dated 29th July 2022 and filed on 19th August 2022. a.That the Respondent misdirected itself in both fact and law by failing to take into account the fact that input tax is allowable and the purchase documents in question as such in VAT Act Schedule II are authentic records which qualify for deductions within six months after the end of the Tax period in which supply or importation occurred and thereby arriving at a wrong VAT Assessment in respect of the of the Appellant.b.That the purchase invoices had ETR receipts or fiscal signatures code approved by the respondentc.That upon the Appellant’s submissions of the VAT returns the system did not reject the submission as in error and that the PIN of the purchaser was not registered.d.That the Commissioner erred in law and fact by not considering the Appellant’s grounds for objection as per Tax Procedures Act No. 29 of 2015 Section- 51(8).

Appellant’s Case 10. The Appellant’s case is premised on the following documents: -a.The Appellant’s Statement of Facts dated 29th July 2022 filed on 19th August 2022 together with the documents attached thereto.b.The Appellant’s written submissions dated on the 19th of February 2023 and filed on 20th February 2023.

11. The Appellant stated that the supplier invoices/receipt that were disallowed by the Respondent in the VAT additional assessment were legitimate and timely as per Section 17(2) of the VAT Act 2013 which provides as follows:―If, at the time when a deduction for input tax would otherwise be allowable under subsection (1), the person does not hold the documentation referred to in subsection (3), the deduction for input tax shall not be allowed until the first tax period in which the person holds such documentation. Provided that the input tax shall be allowable for a deduction within six months after the end of the tax period in which the supply or importation occurred.

12. That the Respondent misdirected itself in both law and facts by failing to take into account the fact that input tax is allowable and the purchase documents in question as such in VAT Act schedule II are authentic records which qualify for deduction within six months after the end of the tax period in which supply or importation occurred, and thereby arriving at a wrong VAT and Income tax Assessment in respect of the Appellant.

13. That upon the Appellant’s submission of the VAT returns in the system, it did not reject the submission as in error and that the PIN of the purchaser is not registered.

14. That the Commissioner erred in law and in fact by not taking into account the Appellant grounds for objection as per Section 51(8) of the Tax Procedures Act No.29 of 2015.

15. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent gave out clear instructions indicating that the purchase invoices and proof of payment would be requested on a sample basis or according to its own assessment upon provision of the requested documents by the Appellant. That the documents requested by the Respondent were as follows.a.Copies of audited financial statementsb.Trial balances and general ledger in softc.Annual bank reconciliations schedules and copies of bank statementsd.Any other relevant documents

16. The Appellant submitted that it served the Respondent with the documents listed above.

The Appellants Prayers 17. The Appellant prayed to the Tribunal for the following orders: -a.To set aside the Commissioner’s decision to disallow VAT input and purchases claimed. That this is because the purchase invoices fully qualify to be part of the taxpayers input to claim.b.To set aside the Commissioner’s VAT and Income tax decision confirming the additional assessments on 16th June 2022, in other words rule in favour of Appellant

Respondent’s Case 18. The Respondent’s case is premised on the documents set out hereunder:-a.The Respondent’s Statement of Facts dated 19th September 2022 and filed on the same date.b.The Respondent’s Written Submissions dated 9th March 2023 and filed on the same date.

19. The Respondent stated that, it conducted a review of the Appellant’s returns for the years 2017 to 2020 to ascertain compliance on input tax claims as per Section 17 of the VAT Act 2013.

20. That the review was carried out in response to information received on 7th October 2021 on Platacom General Agencies PIN P051457165N disowning the purported supplies to the Appellant in the sum of Kshs 95,086,843. 00

21. That from the review, the Respondent established that the Appellant had utilized invoices worth Kshs. 44,818,615. 24 of input VAT from eleven suppliers for the period 2018-2019. Further that the Appellant had claimed total purchases of Kshs. 147,235,529. 32 and KShs 100,975,640. 04 in the year 2018 and 2019, respectively.

22. That the Respondent sent a pre-assessment notice dated 13th October 2022 with preliminary review issues and requested for the breakdown of purchases claimed together with relevant invoices and proof of payments for the purposes of verifications stipulated by law under Section 17 of the VAT ACT.

23. That the Appellant did not respond to the Respondent’s request.

24. The Respondent stated that based on the above findings and the Appellant’s failure to avail the relevant supporting documents and evidence of expenses claimed, the Respondent disallowed the purchases claimed by the Appellant for the period 2018 in the sum of Kshs 177,416,567. 26 and in 2019 in the sum of Kshs 100, 975,640. 04

25. The Respondent stated that it raised the assessments of VAT and Corporation tax in the iTax on 31st March 2022 as shown below to arrive at the assessment of Kshs 83,755,082. 00. Corporation Tax 2018 2019 Total

(Audit Assessment) - - -

Adjusted Profits for theyear 31,825,843. 00 20,633,642. 00 -

Add: DisallowedDeductions 177,416,567. 00 100,975,640. 00 278,392,207. 00

(Purchase) - - -

Less allowable Deduction - - -

Loss B/F - - -

Adjusted Income 209,242,411. 00 121,609,282. 00 330,851,693. 00

Tax on Total Income 30% - - -

Credit B/F 62,772,723. 00 36,482,785. 00 99,255,508. 00

Instalment Tax paid 800,000. 00 980,000. 00 1,780,000. 00

Withholding Tax Credit - - -

(Section 35) 8,807,753. 00 4,912,673. 00 13,720,426. 00

Advance Tax Credits - - -

Section (12) - - -

Corporation Tax - - -

Paid in advance - - -

Additional Assessment - - -

Payment - - -

Tax Due/Overpayment 53,164,970. 00 30,590,112. 00 83,755,082. 00

26. The Respondent stated that the Appellant lodged an invalid objection on 14th April 2022 contrary to Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act

27. That Respondent stated that the Appellant failed to provide all the supporting documents/records and the signed financial statements and bank statements for the period assessed in support of its objection and hence the Respondent issued its objection decision based on the information provided.

28. The Respondent stated that the Tax Procedures Act No. 29 of 2015 places the onus of proof in tax objections to the taxpayer who in this case failed to avail evidence that would support a contrary assessment or that would have guided the Respondent at arriving to a different finding.

29. The Respondent averred that an in-depth examination of the records established that there were inconsistencies in the returns filed by suppliers and the invoices claimed by the Appellant and this indicated a variance as per the VAT returns and income tax returns. That further to that the Appellant provided no explanations on the variance hence the same was disallowed and additional assessments carried issued.

30. The Respondent stated that the Appellant was selected for a return review following variances from the analysis of its returns. That the Respondent disallowed the direct purchase amount in the Appellant’s income tax returns and instead relied on the invoices value as used in the determination of VAT payable as the true direct purchase cost. That the Respondent objection decision and the forwarding email provided a precise and clear breakdown of the workings used to reach the assessments.

31. The Respondent averred that the Appellant failed to provide the documents requested in support of its objection hence the input VAT was disallowed. The Respondent insisted that the Value Added Tax Act No 35 of 2013 empowers the Respondent to disallow such VAT inputs where necessary documents are not provided, and it quoted Section 17 of the VAT Act- Credit for input tax against output tax which states that.(1)Subject to the provisions of this section and the regulations, input tax on a taxable supply to, or importation made by, a registered person may, at the end of the tax period in which the supply or importation occurred, be deducted by the registered person, subject to the exceptions provided under this section, from the tax payable by the person on supplies by him in that tax period, but only to the extent that the supply or importation was acquired to make taxable supplies.2. {If, at the time when a deduction for input tax would otherwise be allowable under subsection (1), the person does not hold the documentation referred to in subsection (3), the deduction/or input tax shall not be allowed until the first tax period in which the person holds such documentation. Provided that the input tax shall be allowable for a deduction within six months after the end of the Tax period in which the supply or importation occurred.

32. The Respondent stated that the Appellant was aggrieved by the assessments and thereby lodged an objection vide its notice of objection dated 14th April 2022. That the Appellant requested that the Income tax additional assessments be vacated from its PIN on the grounds that the rejected invoices were valid and had ETR receipts or fiscal signatures code and should be allowed as authentic purchases for the assessed periods.

33. In response to the Appellant’s grounds of appeal, the Respondent pointed out that there were discrepancies in the Appellant’s returns, particularly between supplier records and claimed invoices and argued that the Appellant failed to provide evidence to challenge its initial tax assessment, as required by the Tax Procedures Act no 29 of 2015.

34. That the Appellant’s failure to explain these discrepancies resulted in the disallowance of certain claims and the issuance of additional assessments. Additionally, the Respondent explained that the adjustments made in the Appellant’s Income tax return were based on invoice values used for calculating VAT, and it provided a detailed breakdown of its assessment calculations in response to the Appeal.

35. The Respondent argued that the Appellant’s failure to provide requested documents in support of its objection led to the disallowance of input VAT. It asserted that the Value Added Tax Act authorizes it to disallow input VAT,when necessary, documentation is not provided. The Respondent relied on Section 17 of the VAT Act

36. The Respondent averred and submitted that in support of the point raised hereinabove it relied on the case of Metcash Trading Limited VS Commissioner for the South Africa Revenue Services and another case CCT 3/2000 where the court held that.―But the burden of proving that the Commissioner was wrong rests on the vendor. Because VAT is inherently a system of self-assessment based on vendors own record, it is obvious that the incidence of this onus can have decisive effect on the outcome of an objection or an appeal. Unlike income tax, where assessments can either elicit genuine difference of opinion about accounting practice, legal interpretations, or the like, in the case of a VAT assessment there must be invariably have been an adverse credibility finding by the commissioner; and by like token such a finding would usually entailed a rejection of the truth of the vendor’s record, returns and averments relating thereto. Consequently, the discharge of the onus is a most formidable hurdle facing VAT vendor who is aggrieved by an assessment: unless the Commissioner’s precipitating credibility finding can be shown to be wrong, consequential assessment must stand.

37. The Respondent averred that the assessment was issued based on the information provided and in light of the inconsistencies within the Appellant's statement of financial position and bank statements.

38. The Respondent stated and further submitted that the Tax procedures Act empowers it to make alterations or findings to the original assessments from available information for a reporting period based on the best judgment.

39. That Section 31 of the TPA provides as follows with regard to amendments of assessments:-―Subject to this section, the Commissioner may amend an assessment (referred to in this section as the "original assessment") by making alterations or additions, from the available information and to the best of the Commissioner’s judgement, to the original assessment of a taxpayer/or a reporting period to ensure that-a.in the case of a deficit carried forward under the Income Tax Act (Cap.470), the taxpayer is assessed in respect of the correct amount of the deficit carried forward for the reporting period.b.in case of excess amount of input tax under the Value Added Tax Act 2013 (No 33 of 2013) the taxpayer is assessed in respect of the correct amount of the excess input tax carried forward for the reporting period.c.In any other case the taxpayer is liable for the correct amount of tax payable in respect of the reporting period to which the original assessment relates.‖

40. The Respondent stated that it considered all the grounds of objections and supporting evidence. It also stated that the Appellant was notified via email of all the grounds of objection and supporting evidence. That however, the Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to address the issues raised hence the said assessment was confirmed. That Section 51(4) of the Tax Procedures Act provides that:-―Where the Commissioner has determined that a notice of objection lodged by a taxpayer has not been validly lodged, the Commissioner shall immediately notify the taxpayer in writing that the objection has not been validly lodged.

41. The Respondent averred that the Appellant was uncooperative in the provision of all the records and failed to respond to request of documents hence insufficient documents were provided to support its objection. That as a result, the assessment was made based on the only available information based on the best judgement by the Respondent. That the Tax Procedures Act empowers the Respondent to require production of such documents vide issuance of notice as deemed necessary in determination of tax liability. That Section 59(1) of the TPA provides as follows:-―For the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of the income of a person or class of persons, the Commissioner may, by notice in writing, require; in the case of the income of a person, that person or any other person, and in the case of a class of persons, any person –a.to produce for examination by the Commissioner at the time and place specified in the notice, any accounts, books of account, and other documents which the Commissioner may consider necessary; and the Commissioner may inspect such accounts, books of accounts or other documents and may take copies of any‖.

42. The Respondent stated that the Appellant availed unreconciled purchase ledgers and later ledgers in PDF making it difficult to select sample invoices. That the Respondent had requested the ledgers in excel format with clear sample invoices as proof of payment delivery notes and suppliers’ confirmation for sampled invoice.

43. That the Appellant’s settlement proposal indicated Nil tax liability without explanation and supporting documentary evidence. That the Respondent had requested the Appellant to provide a well-supported settlement proposal showing specific amendments sought and the tax liability which was not provided.

44. The Respondent argued that Section 43(1) & (2) of the VAT Act imposes a clear obligation on the Appellant to maintain detailed records for its business operations. That Section 43(1) states as follows:-―Every registered person shall, for the purpose of this act, keep in the cause of his business, a full and thorough written record whether in electric form or otherwise, in English or Kiswahili of every transaction he makes, and the records shall be kept in Kenya for a period of 5years from the date of the last entry made therein.The records to be kept under subsection (1) shall include-a.copies of all tax invoices and simplified tax invoices issued in serial number orderc)Purchase invoices, copies of customers entries, receipts for the payment of customs duty or tax, and credit and debit note received, to be filled chronologically either by date of receipt or under each supplier’s name.

45. The Respondent submitted that it was not bound by the Appellant’s tax returns or self-assessment and have the authority to modify assessments based on any relevant information in its possession. It relied on Section 24(2) of the Tax Procedures Act which states that:“The Commissioner shall not be bound by a tax return or information provided by, or on behalf of taxpayers, and the Commissioner may assess a taxpayer's tax liability using any information available."

46. The Respondent reiterated in its submissions that it also relied on Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act which empowers it to make changes or additions to original assessments for a specific reporting period based on its best judgment and available information and that the objection decision issued was accurate based on the documentation provided by the Appellant and the investigations done by the Respondent.

47. The Responded submitted that once in receipt of the documents, they are scrutinised before making a decision. That the Appellant was awarded adequate opportunity to provide the documents and defend its position and it cannot therefore fault the Respondent objection decision whereas it has provided Nil tax liability without providing supporting documents. The Respondent relied on the case of Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Vs Metoxide Africa Ltd., E121 of 2021 to support its averment.

48. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant failed to discharge its burden by adducing evidence. That the Court in Alfred Kioko Muteti v Timothy Miheso & another [2015] eKLR held that:“A party can only discharge its burden upon adducing evidence. Merely making pleadings is not enough. "In reaching its findings, the Court stated that: "Thus, the burden of proof lies on the party) who would fail if no evidence at all were given by either party ....

Pleadings are not evidence 49. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant bears the burden of proving that the objection decision and the findings of the investigations were erroneous. It relied on Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedure Act, that the taxpayer in this case failed to avail evidence that would support a contrary assessment or that would have guided the Respondent at arriving to a different decision. The said Section 56(1) of the TPA provides as follows regarding burden of proof:―In any proceedings under this part, the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect.

50. The Respondent reiterated its submissions by quoting the following cases to support the submissions:-a.Primarosa Flowers Limited vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (2019) eKLR The Court whilst making reference to the Australian case of Mulherin Vs Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 115 held that: -―The onus is on the taxpayer in proving that the assessment was excessive by adducing positive evidence which demonstrate that the taxable income on which tax ought to have been levied "b.Sheria Sacco Limited vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (2019) eKLR The Court in dismissing the Appellant's appeal held the following on the issue of the taxpayer discharging its burden of proof." .. The SACCO however needs to appreciate that what the Tribunal was dealing with was an appeal against the Commissioners' confirming notice that the SACCO had taxes to pay. When one appreciates that then the submissions of the Commissioner·, under this head, are correct that the burden of proof lay on the SACCO. This is what is provided under Section 30(b) of The Tax Appeal Tribunal Act cap 40. That section provides: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.

Respondent’s Prayers 51. The Respondent prays that the Honourable Tribunala.Upholds the Respondent’s decision dated 13th June 2022 as proper and in conformity with the provisions of the law.b.The Appeal herein be dismissed with cost to the Respondent as the same is devoid of any merit.

Issues For Determination 52. The Tribunal upon due consideration of the pleadings and documents of the parties is of the considered view that the issue for determination namely:a.Whether the Objection was validly lodged?b.Whether the Respondent erred in confirming the additional assessments?

Analysis And Findings a) Whether the Objection is validly lodged 53. The Respondent averred that it conducted areview of the Appellant’s returns for the years 2017 to 2020 to ascertain compliance on input tax claims in response to information received on 7th October 2021 regarding a supplier who disowned purported supplies to the Appellant amounting to Kshs 95,086,843. 00 for the period 2019.

54. That the review by the Respondent established that the Appellant had utilized invoices worth Kshs. 44,818,615. 24 of input VAT from eleven suppliers for the period 2018-2019. Further that the Appellant had claimed total purchases of Kshs. 147,235,529. 32 and Kshs 100,975,640. 04 in the year 2018 and 2019, respectively.

55. That the Respondent disallowed all the input VAT claims and reassessed the Appellant for tax due both for VAT and corporation tax.

56. That the Appellant was issued with a pre-assessment notice as per Section 59 of Tax Procedures Act 2015 dated 13th October 2021 requesting it to submit all the relevant documents stated in the assessment notice by latest 21st October 2021. That the requested documents included the following;-a.General Ledger on soft copy for the period 2017 to 2021b.Bank statements for the years 2017 to 2021 on soft copyc.ETR z-report for the years 2017 to 2021 preferably on soft copyd.Supplier statements fo1· the period 2017to 2021e.Payroll for the years 2017 to 2021 on soft copyf.Purchases invoices for the years 2017 to 2021 as claimed in the VAT returns.g.Proof of payment of purchases made as described above.h.Audited financial statements for the years 2017 to 2020.

57. The Respondent indicated in the said letter that the Appellant should avail the relevant documents requested by 21st October 2021.

58. The Appellant did not respond to the pre-assessment notice dated 13th October 2021 neither did it submit the requested documents, a fact that both the Respondent and the Appellant did not dispute.

59. In the absence of a response from the Appellant, the Respondent proceeded to raise the tax assessments in the iTax on 31st March 2022 for VAT and Corporation tax of Kshs 83,755,082. 00.

60. In response, the Appellant lodged an objection to the assessment in the ITax in a letter dated 14th April 2022, indicating that it had not been in trade since late 2018 and therefore there was no competent staff to follow up on the tax matters and assessments in dispute. The Appellant further stated that the emails were also received in a different email category other than the primary hence email notification for the assessment were not visible.

61. The Respondent engaged the Appellant between 14th April 2022 and 13th June 2022 in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

62. In its notice of objection dated 13th June 2022 the Respondent rejected the Appellant’s objection and stated that despite numerous requests and reminders from the Respondent the Appellant failed to state the following in its objection in line with Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act 2015:-a.grounds of objectionb.provide information on the amendments.c.provide supporting documents required to validate the objection.

63. The Respondent indicated that it subsequently rejected the objection under Section 51(4) of the Tax Procedures Act since the Appellant failed to meet the requirements of Section 51(3) of the Tax procedures Act.

64. Section 51(2) & (3) of the Tax Procedures Act states as follows:2. A taxpayer who disputes a tax decision may lodge a notice of objection to the decision, in writing, with the Commissioner within thirty days of being notified of the decision.3. A notice of objection shall be treated as validly lodged by a taxpayer under subsection (2) if—a.the notice of objection states precisely the grounds of objection, the amendments required to be made to correct the decision, and the reasons for the amendments; andb.in relation to an objection to an assessment, the taxpayer has paid the entire amount of tax due under the assessment that is not in dispute.‖

65. The crux of this Appeal is the issue the requirements of a validly lodged Objection Notice as stipulated in the Tax Appeals Procedure Act 2015 Section 51- Objection to Tax Decision. Was there a validly lodged Objection Decision on which the Tribunal could deliberate on and issue a judgment?

66. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant engaged the Respondent on 29th March 2022 five (5) months after the expiry of the notice of assessment of tax. The Tax Procedures Act of 2015 under Section 51-(6 and 7) thereof provides the circumstances under which an Appellant can lodge a late objection. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant in its late objection notice on ITax dated 29th March 2022 failed to meet the threshold of the above Section. Consequently, the Respondent was justified in invalidating the notice of objection.

67. In Tax Appeal Number 291 of 2021 Hasus Energy Limited Vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes the Tribunal stated that for an Objection to be considered validly lodged a notice of objection must contain the following elements:-a.It must be in writing.b.It must be lodged with the Commissioner within thirty days of the taxpayer being notified of the tax decision.c.It must state the grounds of objection.d.It must state the amendments required to be made to correct the decision; ande.It must state the reasons for the amendments.

68. In the case of Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority Ex-Parte Funan Construction Limited [2016] eKLR the court laid emphasis on the decision made in the case of Nairobi H.C. Misc. Civil Application No. 534 of 2007; Republic –vs- Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 Others, Ex-parte Arrow Hi-fi (E. A.) Limited which held that:-―An objection that does not conditionally state a clear and unambiguous position of the taxpayer and which suggests a discussion, or a meeting is not an application under S229 (2) …For it to be effective it must unequivocally deal with all aspects of the assessment and specify the taxpayer’s position on each with clear answers and figures admitted or not admitted….‖

69. Having considered the elements required for an objection to be deemed as validly lodged, it is clear that the letters from the Appellant to the Respondent dated 29th March 2022 and 14th April 2022 fall short of the threshold for a valid objection, as they were time barred, failed to state the grounds of objection and neglected to propose the amendments and reasons for the amendments required.

70. The Appellant was indulged by the Respondent to provide documents in support of its objection via a letter dated 13th October 2021 and later, vide emails sent between 25th April 2022 and 10th June 2022.

71. Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot view the notice of objection by the Appellant as validly lodged.

72. Having concluded that there was no valid objection, the Tribunal will not delve into the other issue that fell for determination as it has been rendered moot.

Final Decision 73. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Tribunal finds that the Appeal has no merit, and the Tribunal accordingly makes the following Orders:-a.The Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.b.The Objection decision dated 13th June 2022 be and is hereby upheldc.Each Party to bear its own costs

74. It is so ordered.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. ERIC NYONGESA WAFULACHAIRMAN...............................................DR RODNEY OLOUCHMEMBER.....................................CYNTIA MAYAKAMEMBER.....................................ABRAHAM KIPROTICHMEMBER.....................................EUNICE NG’ANG’AMEMBER............................................BERNADETTE GITARIMEMBER