Case Reference:Extramile Company Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority (Tax Appeal E1173 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 254 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Audit and Assessment
Extramile Company Limited, a sugar and cereal importer, was subjected to a compliance check by the Kenya Revenue Authority for the years 2020 to 2023. The audit revealed significant discrepancies, leading the Commissioner to issue additional tax assessments on 17th July 2025 totaling KSh 207,028,556.00. The taxes in question included Corporation Income Tax (CIT), Value Added Tax (VAT), Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE), and Withholding Tax (WHT).
The Objection Process
The Appellant lodged an objection against the assessments on 13th August 2025. The objection was premised on several grounds, including the use of incorrect import data, wrong selling prices for sugar, and purchase prices for cereals. The Appellant also contested the inclusion of local sugar purchases in the determination of expected sales and the charging of a related party balance of KSh 37,446,312.00.
However, when KRA requested supporting documentation—including detailed sales ledgers, purchase invoices, stock reconciliations, bank reconciliations, and related party agreements—the Appellant failed to provide adequate evidence to support its claims. Despite being given an opportunity to respond, the Appellant’s documentation was insufficient to rebut the Commissioner’s findings.
On 3rd October 2025, the Commissioner issued an Objection Decision confirming the additional taxes as previously assessed. Dissatisfied, the Appellant lodged an appeal with the Tax Appeals Tribunal on 9th October 2025.
THE FATAL FLAW: UNSIGNED PLEADINGS
When the case came before the Tribunal, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Appellant’s Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts were neither signed nor dated. This, the Respondent contended, rendered the pleadings invalid and the appeal incompetent.
The Tribunal confirmed this critical defect. The rules are explicit: Rule 4(1)(a) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2015 requires that a Memorandum of Appeal “be signed by the appellant.” Similarly, Rule 5(1) mandates that a Statement of Facts be “signed by the appellant.” The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s pleadings violated these statutory requirements.
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE: UNSIGNED PLEADINGS ARE A NULLITY
The Tribunal applied established jurisprudence that an unsigned pleading is void ab initio. In Regina Kavenya Mutuku & 3 Others v United Insurance Company Limited (Civil Case No. 1994 of 2000), Ringera J (as he then was) held:
“An unsigned pleading cannot be valid in law. To my mind, it is the signature of the appropriate person on a pleading which authenticates the same. An unauthenticated document is not a pleading of anybody. It is a nullity.”
The Tribunal also cited Shah v County Government of Trans Nzoia & Another (Environment & Land Case 11 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 1028 (KLR), where the court stated:
“A signature appended on a document gives the ‘ownership’ of the contents thereof to a person who thereby becomes the maker of the document. Failure to do that, even if the unsigned document is filed in court, it is of no consequence.”
The Tribunal emphasized that this was not a minor procedural technicality that could be cured under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. It was a violation of an express statutory requirement, rendering the appeal incompetent.
THE TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATION
The Tribunal struck out the appeal without ever considering the substantive tax dispute. The Appellant never got its day in court to challenge the KSh 207 million assessment. The Tribunal made the following orders:
- The Appeal was struck out in its entirety.
- Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR TAXPAYERS AND PRACTITIONERS
This case mirrors the reasoning in Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Jakoline Enterprises Limited (Income Tax Appeal E016 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11141 (KLR), where the High Court emphasized that “the law does not require the Commissioner to play the role of a forensic accountant. When a taxpayer is asked to explain why its own declarations do not add up, the taxpayer must provide a clear, specific, and indexed reconciliation.”
The High Court in Jakoline further held:
“Flooding the revenue authority with unindexed, chronologically mismatched files is not an act of compliance; it is an evasion of a taxpayer’s evidential duty.”
The Extramile case reinforces several critical principles:
1. Procedural Compliance is Non-Negotiable
The requirement to sign and date pleadings is not a mere formality. It is a statutory obligation that authenticates the document and identifies the party taking responsibility for its contents. An unsigned pleading is a nullity.
2. The Tribunal’s Rules Are Strict
Rules 4(1)(a) and 5(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2015 are explicit. Failure to comply is fatal to an appeal, regardless of its merits.
3. The Burden of Proof is on the Taxpayer
Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act places the burden on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect. To discharge this burden, the taxpayer must file proper pleadings and provide organized, relevant, and indexed documentation.
4. Engage Qualified Professionals
Tax disputes are complex, and procedural rules are strict. Engaging qualified tax lawyers or consultants can help you avoid costly mistakes like unsigned or undated pleadings. The cost of professional advice is small compared to a KSh 207 million tax bill.
5. Review Your Documents Before Filing
Before filing any legal document, double-check that it is properly signed, dated, and complete. This simple step can save you from devastating consequences.
CONCLUSION
The Extramile case is a cautionary tale for every taxpayer in Kenya. It reminds us that the tax dispute resolution process is not just about arguing the law and the facts—it is also about following the rules. A KSh 207 million tax bill is a heavy burden, but losing the chance to challenge it because of a missing signature is a tragedy.