Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedIncome Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2025 (extension of time motion dated 24th July 2025)· [2025] KECA 1854 (KLR)

Twiga Chemical Industries Limited v Commissioner of Custom Services

Court of Appeal of Kenya
7 November 2025
1,262 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed Twiga Chemical to file its tax appeal record 16 days late, showing short delays with honest explanations can be excused.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by a Single Judge of the Court of Appeal (Sichale, JA) on a motion dated 24th July 2025 brought under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 by Twiga Chemical Industries Limited. The applicant sought extension of time to lodge its record of appeal against a High Court decision in Income Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2025, and an order deeming the record of appeal filed on 27th May 2019 as properly filed and served. The record was lodged 16 days outside the 60-day period prescribed by rule 82. The delay came to light only when, on 7th July 2025 and ahead of a hearing fixed for that date, the court of its own motion questioned whether a second appeal lay to the Court of Appeal in tax matters, given the differing timelines in section 54 of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 and rule 21 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Appeals to the High Court) Rules, 2015. The respondent, though served, filed no response and had consistently indicated readiness to proceed. Applying the well-established rule 4 guidelines drawn from Mwangi v Kenya Airways Limited and Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, the judge found the 16-day delay not inordinate, the explanation plausible, declined to assess arguability as a Single Judge, and found no prejudice. The motion was allowed as prayed, with costs of the motion abiding the outcome of the intended appeal. The decision is interlocutory and binds no determination on the merits; the notice of appeal having been filed within time, only the record lodgment was regularised.

Key legal issues

#
01

Exercise of the Single Judge's discretion under rule 4 to extend time

Holding

The discretion is wide and unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, applying the established guidelines of length of delay, reason for delay, arguability and prejudice.

Reasoning

The court restated the rule 4 principles from Mwangi v Kenya Airways and Leo Sila Mutiso. It found the 16-day delay not inordinate, the reasons plausible given the uncertainty over whether the statutory timelines in tax appeals referred to filing a notice of appeal or lodging the record, and no prejudice to the respondent who never objected and did not respond to the motion.

p. 2
02

Prejudice to the respondent where no opposition is filed

Holding

Where the respondent fails to respond to an extension of time application despite service and has expressed readiness to proceed, no prejudice arises.

Reasoning

The respondent was served electronically with the application and hearing notice but filed no response and at no point objected to the timeliness of the appeal. The judge treated this non-response and prior willingness to proceed as confirming that allowing the extension occasioned no prejudice.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • In deciding an application to extend time under rule 4, the court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time for lodgment of the record of appeal from 11th May 2019 to 27th May 2019
  2. 2.The record of appeal dated 24th May 2019 and lodged in the Court of Appeal on 27th May 2019 deemed duly and properly filed and served
  3. 3.Costs of the motion to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
On appeal from
High Court
Income Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (Single Judge jurisdiction to extend time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Twiga Chemical Industries Limited v Commissioner of Custom Services", Case Analysis (2025). Income Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2025 (extension of time motion dated 24th July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1854/eng@2025-11-07

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.