By The Weekly Vision Reporter
The battle over who should occupy the corner office at Times Tower has entered a new chapter, after the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) mounted a fresh constitutional challenge against Adan Mohammed’s appointment as Commissioner General of the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), with the High Court in Nairobi issuing directions that set the stage for a protracted legal contest stretching into October.
In a ruling dated 2nd August 2026, Justice Gregory Mutai of the Milimani High Court’s Constitutional and Human Rights Division laid out a strict timetable for the exchange of pleadings in the case, Consumers Federation of Kenya v State Law Office and Kenya Revenue Authority and 2 Others, even as he flagged that the matter overlaps with another pending petition raising the same core question.
The petition, filed alongside a Notice of Motion on 29th July 2026, once again puts Mr Mohammed’s appointment as KRA’s top tax collector under judicial scrutiny, this time before a different court entirely. COFEK’s original challenge, filed within days of Mr Mohammed’s swearing-in earlier this year, had been lodged at the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), where it was ultimately struck out on jurisdictional grounds without the substantive allegations ever being tested on their merits.
Rather than let the matter rest, COFEK has now moved to the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court, a forum it evidently believes is properly seized of the constitutional questions it seeks to raise. Justice Mutai’s directions confirm that the petition impugns Mr Mohammed’s appointment as Commissioner General and seeks to have it nullified, though the ruling itself does not delve into the substantive grounds of challenge.
Having perused the Petition and the Notice of Motion together with the accompanying documents, Justice Mutai directed that,
- The Petition and Notice of Motion, both dated 29th July 2026, are to be served on the Respondents and the Interested Party, in both soft and hard copy, within three working days, after which the Petitioner must file an affidavit of service.
- The Respondents and the Interested Party are to enter appearance and file their respective responses to the Petition and Notice of Motion within 14 days of being served. COFEK, as Petitioner, is then to file any rejoinders together with written submissions in support of its case within 14 days of receiving the Respondents’ and Interested Party’s responses. The Respondents and Interested Party will thereafter have a further 14 days to file written submissions in opposition, once served with the Petitioner’s rejoinders and submissions.
The matter has been set for mention on 13th October 2026, when the court will confirm compliance with the timetable and issue further directions. Named as Respondents in the suit are the State Law Office and the Kenya Revenue Authority, with two other parties joined to the proceedings; Mr Mohammed features as the Interested Party whose appointment stands to be affected by the outcome.
Notably, Justice Mutai’s ruling draws a direct link between COFEK’s fresh petition and a separate, ongoing case before the same court: Bernard Opere v The Cabinet Secretary, Treasury and 5 Others (Petition No. E311 of 2026), which the judge noted concerns “the same subject matter.” That petition, filed by a private citizen at around the same time as COFEK’s original suit, similarly contests the legality of Mr Mohammed’s elevation to the helm of the tax authority.
With Mr Opere’s petition already due for mention on 13th October 2026, Justice Mutai appears to have deliberately aligned COFEK’s case to the same date, a move that suggests the court may be positioning itself to consider both challenges together, or at least in close succession, once pleadings close.
While Wednesday’s directions did not traverse the substance of COFEK’s allegations, the federation’s earlier, now-defunct ELRC petition centred on claims that Mr Mohammed, reportedly born in December 1963, had exceeded the mandatory retirement age of 60 for public officers by roughly two years at the time of his appointment. COFEK had argued that Section 80 of the Public Service Commission Act permits only limited, exceptional contractual retention of retired officers on account of rare skills, and cannot lawfully be stretched into a parallel route for substantive appointment to a powerful state office such as KRA’s Commissioner General.
The federation had further contended that Mr Mohammed’s appointment breached Articles 10, 73 and 232 of the Constitution, which govern national values, leadership and integrity, and public service values respectively, and had questioned why a candidate allegedly above the statutory age threshold was preferred over younger applicants who had gone through a competitive recruitment process. KRA, the State Law Office, and Mr Mohammed have not yet filed formal responses to the fresh petition, and the allegations against the appointment remain, for now, unproven claims that COFEK will be required to substantiate before the court.
The renewed litigation lands at a delicate moment for Kenya’s revenue administration. Mr Mohammed, a former Cabinet Secretary for Industrialisation who previously served in senior banking roles, took over as Commissioner General from Humphrey Wattanga in May, at a time when KRA is under sustained pressure to meet ambitious collection targets amid a strained fiscal environment.
Prolonged uncertainty over the legitimacy of his tenure risks unsettling taxpayers, investors and multilateral lenders who look to the authority for policy continuity, particularly as the taxman rolls out new digital compliance systems and pursues aggressive revenue-mobilisation measures under the current fiscal year.
Should the High Court ultimately side with the petitioners, KRA could face the prospect of a leadership vacuum at a critical juncture, with knock-on effects for pending tax rulings, ongoing enforcement actions and the authority’s broader modernisation agenda. Conversely, a dismissal of the petitions would close off, for now, one of the more persistent legal threats hanging over the KRA boss’s tenure. For businesses navigating KRA’s evolving compliance requirements, the coming months will be worth watching closely, not merely for the legal outcome, but for what it signals about the durability of appointments to Kenya’s most consequential revenue-collecting institution.
