Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v WEC Lines Kenya Ltd (Civil Appeal (Application) E198 of 2021) [2026] KECA 829 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that KRA's late appeal goes ahead because a full bench rarely overrides a single judge's discretionary rulings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the full bench on reference should interfere with the single judge's discretionary decision to grant extension of time to file the memorandum and record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the reason for the delay (misplacement of the appellant's files following relocation of offices) was a relevant and sufficient consideration
- 3.Whether the intended appeal was arguable and raised issues of public interest
- 4.Whether the application for extension of time should automatically be dismissed because it was filed after the application to strike out the appeal
- 5.Whether the appeal should be struck out for having been filed out of time
Key legal issues
#The threshold for interference with a single judge's discretionary ruling on reference
The full bench may interfere only if the single judge considered an irrelevant matter, ignored a relevant one, misapprehended evidence or law, or was plainly wrong; that the full bench would have decided differently is not a ground.
The court adopted the settled test from John Koyi Waluke v Moses Masika Wetangula, restating that a single judge exercising the rule 4 discretion does so on behalf of the whole court. The reference court confines itself to reviewing the process of the exercise of discretion, not substituting its own view of the merits of the discretionary outcome.
Whether misplacement of the appellant's files due to office relocation was a relevant reason for delay
It was a relevant consideration, indeed the cornerstone of the application, and the single judge's finding that it was excusable could not be disturbed.
The court held that a reference court cannot reverse a single judge's finding merely because the applicant thinks the reason insufficient or because a different judge would have weighed it differently. Since the misplacement of files was a relevant consideration, was addressed, and was the subject of a reasoned decision, the discretion was properly exercised. It noted the same factor was treated as relevant in the Antony Burugu case.
Whether a later-filed extension application must be dismissed because it followed a strike-out application
No; every case turns on its own facts. In Antony Burugu the dismissal rested primarily on unexplained inordinate delay of about six months, not on the sequencing of applications.
The court distinguished Anthony Burugu & Company Advocates v Electrowatts Limited, on which the respondent relied, observing that in that case there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of close to six months which preceded the sequencing point. Here the delay was only nine days, well explained, and the appellant had not been furnished with the certificate of delay when it filed the appeal.
Whether the intended appeal was arguable and raised matters of public interest
The appeal was arguable and public interest favoured the issues on taxation of shipping-industry services being determined with finality.
The court found itself unable to fault the single judge, since arguability and public interest are recognised relevant factors under the Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi dictum. The intended appeal, touching on how taxation should be imposed on services offered by a category of players in the shipping industry, could not be considered so frivolous as to fail the arguability test.
Legal principles established
#- A full bench on reference may interfere with a single judge's discretionary decision under rule 4 only where the single judge took into account an irrelevant matter, failed to take into account a relevant matter, misapprehended the evidence and law, or was plainly wrong; it is not enough that the full bench would have reached a different result.
- An application for extension of time filed after an application to strike out the appeal does not automatically fail; each case must be decided on its unique facts and circumstances.
Court orders
#- 1.The application seeking to reverse the decision of the single Judge is dismissed with costs
- 2.The application to strike out the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- 3.The ruling applies mutatis mutandis to Nairobi Civil Appeal (Application) Nos. E195 of 2021, E197 of 2021 and E328 of 2021, where similar questions of fact and law were raised
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Income Tax Appeal No. 29 of 2017, WEC Lines (Kenya) Limited v The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 57(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (reference from the decision of a single judge under rule 4)
- Consolidated with
- Nairobi Civil Appeal (Application) No. E195 of 2021, The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs Inchcape Shipping Services (K) Limited, Nairobi Civil Appeal (Application) No. E197 of 2021, The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs WEC Lines Kenya Limited, Nairobi Civil Appeal (Application) No. E328 of 2021, The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs Sturrock Shipping (Kenya) Limited
Relief refused
#The respondent's prayer to reverse the single judge's ruling granting extension of time
No irrelevant consideration was taken into account by the single judge and no relevant consideration was ignored; the decision was neither plainly wrong nor one no reasonable judge could reach
The respondent's application to strike out the appeal for being filed out of time
It follows from the dismissal of the reference that the extension of time stands
Costs
The application seeking to reverse the decision of the single Judge was dismissed with costs to the appellant; the application to strike out the appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the full bench of the court would only be entitled to interfere with the exercise of discretion if it be shown that in the process of exercising the discretion, the single Judge has taken into account an irrelevant matter which he ought not to have taken into account, or that he failed to take into account a relevant matter
It is not enough, for example, to show the full court that had it been sitting in place of the single Judge, it would have arrived at a difierent result.
we are not persuaded that every application for extension of time, which comes after an application to strike out an appeal for being filed out of time, must automatically be dismissed for being filed later. Every case must be decided on the basis of its unique facts and circumstances.
we do not find merit in the application seeking to reverse the decision of the single Judge and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. It follows that we cannot allow the application to strike out the appeal and it is also hereby dismissed. The latter application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated and delivered at Nairobi on 30th April 2026, which postdates the reference and applications of 2021-2022 by several years and may be a typographical error in the date of delivery.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v WEC Lines Kenya Ltd (Civil Appeal (Application) E198 of 2021) [2026] KECA 829 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nairobi Civil Appeal (Application) No. E194 of 2021 (Reference); Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/829/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.