Case Study:Towfiq Investment and Supplies Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E846 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 45 (KLR) (25 March 2026) (Judgment)
Case Background
The Appellant, Towfiq Investment and Supplies Limited, a construction company, was audited by the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes for the years 2018 to 2021. On 25th September 2024, the Commissioner issued audit findings assessing additional taxes totalling Kshs. 24,702,040.00.
The Appellant manually objected to the assessments on 25th October 2024. The Commissioner subsequently issued an objection decision on 20th December 2024. Aggrieved by the Commissioner’s decision, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Tax Appeal Tribunal on 5th August 2025.
Defective Appeal
Before the Tribunal could consider the merits of the tax dispute, the Commissioner raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal on three fundamental grounds.
First, the Appellant had failed to attach the objection decision to its appeal documents, as mandatorily required by law.
Second, the appeal was filed well beyond the 30-day statutory period, and the Appellant had not sought nor obtained leave from the Tribunal to file the appeal out of time.
Third, the Appellant’s pleadings—including the Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts—were unsigned, rendering them invalid as a matter of law.
Appeal Struck Out
The Tax Appeal Tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s preliminary objection and struck out the appeal in its entirety. The Tribunal also ordered each party to bear its own costs. This section analyses the grounds upon which the Tribunal based its decision.
The Foundation of Every Appeal: The Objection Decision
The Tribunal held that the failure to attach the objection decision was a fatal jurisdictional defect. Section 13(2) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act requires an appellant to submit, within fourteen days of filing a notice of appeal, the memorandum of appeal, statement of facts, the appealable decision, and such other documents as may be necessary to enable the Tribunal to make a decision on the appeal.
An “appealable decision” is defined to mean an objection decision issued by the Commissioner under Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act. The Tribunal emphasised that the objection decision is the very substratum of the appeal—it is the decision being challenged. Without it, there is no identifiable decision before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had not only failed to file the objection decision but had also failed to file any documentation or assessments referred to that would have assisted its case. This compounded the procedural deficiency.
Mandatory Timelines: A Strict 30-Day Window
Section 13(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act provides that a notice of appeal must be submitted to the Tribunal within thirty days upon receipt of the decision of the Commissioner.
In this case, the Commissioner had issued its objection decision on 20th December 2024. The Appellant, however, did not file its appeal until 5th August 2025—more than seven months later. This was manifestly outside the statutory period.
To compound the problem, the Appellant had not filed an application for extension of time as required under Section 13(3) and (4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. Those provisions allow the Tribunal to extend time for filing a notice of appeal only upon a written application demonstrating absence from Kenya, sickness, or other reasonable cause that prevented the applicant from filing within the specified period.
The Appellant had sought no such extension. Consequently, the appeal was incurably time-barred.
Unsigned Pleadings Have No Legal Validity
The Tribunal also noted that the Appellant’s Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts were unsigned. The Respondent submitted, and the Tribunal agreed, that an unsigned pleading has no validity in law and is a nullity. The signature on a pleading authenticates the document; an unauthenticated document cannot be considered a valid pleading before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal observed that the rules employ the word “shall”, meaning the requirement to sign pleadings is mandatory and not discretional. An unsigned Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts are therefore incurably defective and cannot form the basis of a valid appeal.
Key Takeaways for Taxpayers
The Towfiq Investment case offers several critical lessons for taxpayers and tax practitioners in Kenya:
First, an appeal to the Tax Appeal Tribunal is not a substantive right that can be exercised in any manner. It is a statutory right that must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Tax Procedures Act and the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. Any deviation from those procedures can be fatal.
Second, the objection decision is the foundation of any appeal. Without attaching the objection decision to the appeal documents, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Taxpayers should ensure they obtain and preserve a copy of the objection decision, and attach it to their appeal documents at the time of filing.
Third, statutory timelines are mandatory and must be strictly observed. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of receiving the objection decision. If this is not possible, a formal application for extension of time must be filed, providing a reasonable explanation for the delay. Unexplained or unjustified delays will not be excused.
Fourth, all pleadings filed before the Tribunal must be properly signed. An unsigned Memorandum of Appeal or Statement of Facts is a nullity and cannot be cured.
Fifth, the Tribunal will not hesitate to strike out appeals purely on procedural grounds without considering the merits. The substantive justice of the taxpayer’s case becomes irrelevant once the Tribunal determines it lacks jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The striking out of the appeal in Towfiq Investment and Supplies Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes is a cautionary tale for all taxpayers. The taxpayer had legitimate grievances about the Commissioner’s assessment, including arguments about business expenses, PAYE assessments for a year with no business activity, and the rejection of its bank statements. Yet none of these arguments were ever considered by the Tribunal.
The case underscores a fundamental reality of tax dispute resolution in Kenya: process precedes substance. Taxpayers who fail to follow the mandated procedural steps—no matter how compelling their substantive case—will find their appeals struck out at the threshold, with no opportunity to be heard on the merits.
For taxpayers facing disputes with the Kenya Revenue Authority, the lesson is clear: engage competent tax advisors early, file objections within the statutory timelines, ensure all documentation is complete and properly signed, and strictly comply with every procedural requirement. The alternative is an appeal that never reaches the starting line.
