By The Weekly Vision Team
A Tax Appeals Tribunal decision delivered on 7 August 2026 has left both former Nairobi governor Mike Sonko and the Kenya Revenue Authority able to claim victory in a Sh385 million dispute. The judgment contains two seemingly contradictory orders in its final disposition, creating what appears to be an unusual legal curiosity that has already drawn comment from tax practitioners. The case arose from KRA’s reconstruction of Mr Sonko’s income between 2013 and 2019.
Investigators examined 11 bank accounts and identified net deposits of Sh1.4 billion. After excluding loans, reversals and already-taxed sums, the authority assessed taxable income of Sh1.28 billion and issued a demand of approximately Sh385 million. Mr Sonko objected, arguing that the deposits included legitimate business receipts and non-taxable items and that KRA had ignored supporting documents. The Commissioner issued an objection decision on 13 December 2024 confirming most of the assessment. Mr Sonko appealed to the Tribunal in January 2025. In its reasoning, the Tribunal was unambiguous. It found that Mr Sonko had failed to discharge the statutory burden of proof. Taxpayers must produce records requested by the Commissioner and demonstrate that an assessment is excessive or incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that Mr Sonko had been given a further opportunity in June 2026 to file additional documents and supplementary submissions; he did not do so. The panel therefore concluded that KRA had been justified in rejecting the objection. Yet the orders that follow this analysis pull in opposite directions. The Tribunal first dismisses the appeal for lack of merit, then immediately sets aside the very objection decision it has just upheld. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.
The inconsistency is so stark that one tax adviser remarked that both sides would now “walk away saying we won”.Others treated the outcome as a loss for Mr Sonko, focusing on the finding that he had not produced sufficient evidence. The seemingly clerical error in the disposition did not alter that reading. Similar judgments issued by the same chairperson around the same date, one tax adviser argued, use the conventional formula: appeal dismissed, objection decision upheld.
The “set aside” wording in Mr Sonko’s case therefore looks like a drafting slip rather than a deliberate change of mind. In practice, the reasoning is likely to prevail. Kenyan courts ordinarily treat the body of a judgment as controlling where the formal orders contain an obvious inconsistency.
KRA can apply for a review to correct the wording. Mr Sonko, for his part, has already indicated that he will take the matter to the High Court, arguing that the funds were not undeclared taxable income. Until that appeal is heard, the Tribunal’s decision stands.
