1. Before the Court for determination are two applications, both dated 2nd July 2025, filed by Baraza Limited T/A Kenya Television Network (in Misc. Application No. 564 of 2025) and Standard Group PLC (in Misc. Application No. 565 of 2025) (collectively referred to as "the Applicants").
2. In both applications, the Applicants seek interim orders of stay pending the hearing and determination of their respective main applications dated 3rd June 2025. The main applications challenge the legality of Agency Notices issued on 26th May 2025 by the Respondent, the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, for the recovery of alleged tax debts.
3. In Misc. 564 of 2025, the Applicant seeks to stay the enforcement of Agency Notices demanding Kshs. 852,359,953.26, while in Misc. 565 of 2025, the notices demand Kshs. 2,052,262,677.87.
4. Pursuant to an order of this Court issued on 2nd July 2025, the two applications were consolidated for hearing and determination given the similarity of issues involved.
Applicants’ Case
5. The Applicants contend that the Agency Notices have paralyzed their operations, making it impossible to meet day-to-day obligations, including payment of staff salaries and other overheads.
6. Through Ms. Olili, Learned Counsel, the Applicants clarified that the present applications do not seek a blanket suspension of the Agency Notices but rather a limited and conditional stay, specifically to allow payment of salaries.
7. The Applicants further expressed willingness to: Provide payroll schedules, bank statements, and other supporting documentation to demonstrate that funds released are strictly for salary payments, and to ensure that the Respondent’s revenue interests are not prejudiced.
Respondent’s Case
8. The Respondent, represented by Ms. Mulinge, Learned Counsel, opposed the applications. The Respondent submitted that Payment of taxes in instalments is a discretionary matter for the Commissioner. That in any event, the taxes in question were self-declared by the Applicants and no payments have been made against the acknowledged liabilities.
9. The Counsel nevertheless informed Court that the Respondent is willing to consider structured payments, provided it leads to recovery of the outstanding amounts.
Analysis and Determination
10. The issue for determination at this stage is whether the Court should grant interim relief by suspending the Agency Notices to the limited extent sought, pending determination of the main applications.
11. It is not in dispute that the taxes in question were self-declared by the Applicants. However, the Applicants assert that there was an existing payment plan which the Respondent unilaterally disregarded by demanding the entire tax sum. The Respondent, however, denies the existence of any binding payment plan.
12. The Court’s duty at this interlocutory stage is not to delve into the merits of the main dispute, but rather to balance the competing interests and ensure that justice is served pending the final determination of the substantive applications. The Court is guided by the principles laid down in St. Patrick’s Hill School Ltd v Bank of Africa Kenya Ltd [2018] KEHC 4886 (KLR), where it was held that: -
“This court has unfettered discretion to discharge, vary, or set aside an injunction order if the ends of justice so demand. The court must ask whether it is unjust to maintain the order in force or whether it is otherwise unjust and inequitable to let the order remain.”
13. In the present case, it is necessary to balance the Applicants’ need to continue operations and protect employment against the Respondent’s right to collect taxes. This balance is, in the view of the Court, best achieved if interim measures are put in place pending hearing and determination of the substantive dispute.
14. In the premises, the Court finds that granting a conditional interim stay is justified to allow the Applicants to continue basic operations, including paying employees, while also securing the Respondent’s revenue interests.
15. Accordingly, the Court issues the following orders: -
Final Orders
A. Misc. Application No. 564 of 2025 (Baraza Limited T/A Kenya Television Network Ltd)
i. An interim order of stay of the Agency Notices dated 26th May 2025 is granted on the following conditions: -
a) The Applicant shall forthwith pay Kshs. 13.5 million to the Respondent, being the admitted arrears under the previous instalment arrangement.
b) The Applicant shall thereafter pay Kshs. 50 million per month, commencing 1st August 2025 and on the 1st day of each subsequent month, pending the hearing and determination of the main application.
c) In default of any one monthly instalment, the interim stay shall automatically lapse without further reference to Court.
ii. The main application (dated 3rd June 2025) shall be heard on 5th November 2025.
iii. Costs shall be in the cause.
B. Misc. Application No. 565 of 2025 (Standard Group PLC)
i. An interim order of stay of the Agency Notices dated 26th May 2025 is granted on the following conditions: -
a) The Applicant shall forthwith pay Kshs. 25.5 million to the Respondent, being the admitted arrears under the previous instalment arrangement.
b) The Applicant shall thereafter pay Kshs. 100 million per month, commencing 1st August 2025 and on the 1st day of each subsequent month, pending the hearing and determination of the main application.
c) In default of any one monthly instalment, the interim stay shall automatically lapse without further reference to Court.
ii. The main application (dated 3rd June 2025) shall be heard on 5th November 2025.
iii. Costs shall be in the cause.
16. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED, and DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS
21ST DAY OF JULY 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the Presence of
Moses C/A
Ms. Olili h/b for Gordon Ogolla ……………for the Applicant
Ms. Mulinge………. ……………………..for Defendant
2. In both applications, the Applicants seek interim orders of stay pending the hearing and determination of their respective main applications dated 3rd June 2025. The main applications challenge the legality of Agency Notices issued on 26th May 2025 by the Respondent, the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, for the recovery of alleged tax debts.
3. In Misc. 564 of 2025, the Applicant seeks to stay the enforcement of Agency Notices demanding Kshs. 852,359,953.26, while in Misc. 565 of 2025, the notices demand Kshs. 2,052,262,677.87.
4. Pursuant to an order of this Court issued on 2nd July 2025, the two applications were consolidated for hearing and determination given the similarity of issues involved.
Applicants’ Case
5. The Applicants contend that the Agency Notices have paralyzed their operations, making it impossible to meet day-to-day obligations, including payment of staff salaries and other overheads.
6. Through Ms. Olili, Learned Counsel, the Applicants clarified that the present applications do not seek a blanket suspension of the Agency Notices but rather a limited and conditional stay, specifically to allow payment of salaries.
7. The Applicants further expressed willingness to: Provide payroll schedules, bank statements, and other supporting documentation to demonstrate that funds released are strictly for salary payments, and to ensure that the Respondent’s revenue interests are not prejudiced.
Respondent’s Case
8. The Respondent, represented by Ms. Mulinge, Learned Counsel, opposed the applications. The Respondent submitted that Payment of taxes in instalments is a discretionary matter for the Commissioner. That in any event, the taxes in question were self-declared by the Applicants and no payments have been made against the acknowledged liabilities.
9. The Counsel nevertheless informed Court that the Respondent is willing to consider structured payments, provided it leads to recovery of the outstanding amounts.
Analysis and Determination
10. The issue for determination at this stage is whether the Court should grant interim relief by suspending the Agency Notices to the limited extent sought, pending determination of the main applications.
11. It is not in dispute that the taxes in question were self-declared by the Applicants. However, the Applicants assert that there was an existing payment plan which the Respondent unilaterally disregarded by demanding the entire tax sum. The Respondent, however, denies the existence of any binding payment plan.
12. The Court’s duty at this interlocutory stage is not to delve into the merits of the main dispute, but rather to balance the competing interests and ensure that justice is served pending the final determination of the substantive applications. The Court is guided by the principles laid down in St. Patrick’s Hill School Ltd v Bank of Africa Kenya Ltd [2018] KEHC 4886 (KLR), where it was held that: -
“This court has unfettered discretion to discharge, vary, or set aside an injunction order if the ends of justice so demand. The court must ask whether it is unjust to maintain the order in force or whether it is otherwise unjust and inequitable to let the order remain.”
13. In the present case, it is necessary to balance the Applicants’ need to continue operations and protect employment against the Respondent’s right to collect taxes. This balance is, in the view of the Court, best achieved if interim measures are put in place pending hearing and determination of the substantive dispute.
14. In the premises, the Court finds that granting a conditional interim stay is justified to allow the Applicants to continue basic operations, including paying employees, while also securing the Respondent’s revenue interests.
15. Accordingly, the Court issues the following orders: -
Final Orders
A. Misc. Application No. 564 of 2025 (Baraza Limited T/A Kenya Television Network Ltd)
i. An interim order of stay of the Agency Notices dated 26th May 2025 is granted on the following conditions: -
a) The Applicant shall forthwith pay Kshs. 13.5 million to the Respondent, being the admitted arrears under the previous instalment arrangement.
b) The Applicant shall thereafter pay Kshs. 50 million per month, commencing 1st August 2025 and on the 1st day of each subsequent month, pending the hearing and determination of the main application.
c) In default of any one monthly instalment, the interim stay shall automatically lapse without further reference to Court.
ii. The main application (dated 3rd June 2025) shall be heard on 5th November 2025.
iii. Costs shall be in the cause.
B. Misc. Application No. 565 of 2025 (Standard Group PLC)
i. An interim order of stay of the Agency Notices dated 26th May 2025 is granted on the following conditions: -
a) The Applicant shall forthwith pay Kshs. 25.5 million to the Respondent, being the admitted arrears under the previous instalment arrangement.
b) The Applicant shall thereafter pay Kshs. 100 million per month, commencing 1st August 2025 and on the 1st day of each subsequent month, pending the hearing and determination of the main application.
c) In default of any one monthly instalment, the interim stay shall automatically lapse without further reference to Court.
ii. The main application (dated 3rd June 2025) shall be heard on 5th November 2025.
iii. Costs shall be in the cause.
16. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED, and DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS
21ST DAY OF JULY 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the Presence of
Moses C/A
Ms. Olili h/b for Gordon Ogolla ……………for the Applicant
Ms. Mulinge………. ……………………..for Defendant