NAIROBI, Kenya July 1-The Court of Appeal has ruled that the decision by the Kenya Revenue Authority to issue the forfeiture notice for thirty-one motor vehicles ten years ago to twenty-seven motor vehicle owners was within the law.
KRA and its Commissioner of Investigation and Enforcement had appealed the judgment of the High Court issued on 7th December 2016.
Setting aside the judgment of the High court in its entirety, the Court of Appeal on 24th June 2022 stated as follows;
“…The notice opened an avenue for the respondents to present their case to the appellants through the appellants’ vehicle inspection section. The appellants therefore provided the respondents with an opportunity to be heard, which the respondents declined to take up. The appellants did not shut their doors on the respondents, and neither did they decline to receive any form of representations from them…”
According to a statement from Paul Matuku, KRA Commissioner, Legal Services & Board Coordination, the matter arose after post-import investigations by KRA revealed that import duty for a number of motor vehicles owned by the respondents had been mis-declared for others it was not fully paid and for some the duty had not been paid at all.
KRA published a Notice in the “Daily Nation” newspaper on May 21 2012 pursuant to the outcome of the investigations, requiring the owners of the motor vehicles with outstanding tax issues to liaise with the motor vehicle inspection section of KRA and produce the vehicles and relevant documents for verification.
Matuku said the Respondents moved to the High Court to seek and were granted orders to quash the decision of KRA given vide the Public Notice and an order to prohibit KRA from impounding, levying distress or in any way interfering with the respondents’ possession and usage of their respective motor vehicles.
“They argued that KRA had denied them an opportunity to be heard before issuing them with the forfeiture notices as no demand notice on outstanding duty was issued to them.”
On appeal, KRA’s position was that the notice issued was for verification purpose only, and which was within its mandate to issue such notices pursuant to the East African Community Customs Management Act.
The notice required the owners of the listed motor vehicles to first liaise with KRA, after which they would present the relevant documentation of the vehicles for verification purposes.
This for KRA constituted an opportunity for the respondents to be heard and Matuku noted that the respondents failed to comply with the notice and, therefore, could not argue that they were denied an opportunity to be heard.
The Court of Appeal has now agreed with KRA, holding that the published notice by KRA in the “Daily Nation” was plain and unambiguous.
“The notice did not make any immediate demand on the payment of duty. It required owners of the listed motor vehicles to liaise with the appellants’ motor vehicle investigation section.”
