Legal Analysis–The Case of Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Attorney General & Kenya Revenue Authority [2020] eKLR, Petition No. 156 of 2017

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This brief examines the judgment of the High Court of Kenya delivered on 20th February 2020 in Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Attorney General & Kenya Revenue Authority [2020] eKLR, Petition No. 156 of 2017, wherein the Court upheld the constitutionality of sections 57, 58(2), 59 and 99 of the Tax Procedures Act, No. 29 of 2015 (hereinafter “the TPA”).

1.2 The petitioner, Mr. Okiya Omtatah Okoiti, had sought a declaration that the said provisions were inconsistent with the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, for allegedly violating the right to privacy (Article 31) and the privilege against self-incrimination (Article 50(2)(l)).

2. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

2.1 Whether sections 57, 58(2), 59 and 99 of the Tax Procedures Act infringe upon:
a. The right to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution; and
b. The privilege against self-incrimination under Article 50(2)(l) of the Constitution.

2.2 Whether the enforcement powers conferred upon the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) by the impugned provisions are reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society within the meaning of Article 24 of the Constitution.

3. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

3.1 The Tax Procedures Act, 2015 was enacted to harmonize and consolidate procedural rules relating to the administration of tax laws in Kenya.

3.2 The impugned provisions grant the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes the following powers:

• Section 57: Power to access premises and inspect goods, records, and equipment for tax purposes.
• Section 58(2): Authority to require any person in custody of relevant documents to produce them for inspection.
• Section 59: Power to obtain, extract, or make copies of such documents or information.
• Section 99: Power to seize documents or items necessary for determining tax liability and to penalize non-compliance by a fine not exceeding KShs. 1,000,000, or imprisonment not exceeding three (3) years, or both.

3.3 Under section 6(1) of the TPA, KRA is obligated to maintain the confidentiality of taxpayer information, save for the exceptions enumerated under section 6(2).

4. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

4.1 The Petitioner contended that the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringed the right to privacy and the privilege against self-incrimination.

4.2 It was further argued that KRA had previously exercised these powers in a politically motivated manner, citing the 2017 incident in which KRA allegedly requested Diamond Trust Bank to release the financial information of H.E. Ali Hassan Joho, Governor of Mombasa County.

5. RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS

5.1 The Attorney General and the Kenya Revenue Authority submitted that the provisions were consistent with the Constitution and served a legitimate public purpose — namely, ensuring compliance with tax obligations.

5.2 They further argued that any limitation of rights occasioned by the provisions met the threshold of Article 24(1) of the Constitution as it was reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the objective of safeguarding national revenue.

6. THE COURT’S ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

6.1 The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the constitutionality of sections 57, 58(2), 59, and 99 of the TPA.

6.2 On the right to privacy, the Court held that:

• The enforcement powers under the TPA are specific to tax administration and do not amount to an unjustifiable intrusion into an individual’s private affairs.
• The confidentiality obligation imposed by section 6 of the TPA adequately protects taxpayer information from misuse.

6.3 On the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court reasoned that:

• The right under Article 50(2)(l) does not exempt individuals from fulfilling lawful obligations, including the duty to provide information necessary for tax assessment.
• The privilege cannot be used as a shield to obstruct lawful investigations or conceal non-compliance with tax laws.

6.4 The Court therefore concluded that the use of compulsory powers to obtain information from taxpayers or third parties does not violate the right against self-incrimination.

7. RELATED JURISPRUDENCE

7.1 The Court distinguished this case from Robert K. Ayisi v Kenya Revenue Authority [2018] eKLR, Petition No. 421 of 2016, in which section 59(4) of the TPA was declared unconstitutional for violating advocate–client privilege as protected under section 137 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80, Laws of Kenya).

7.2 The Omtatah decision clarified that the invalidity of section 59(4) was limited to communications between advocates and clients, and did not affect the validity of the broader investigative and enforcement powers under the remaining provisions of the Act.

8. IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION

8.1 The judgment affirms that the Kenya Revenue Authority possesses broad statutory powers to obtain information from taxpayers and third parties for purposes of tax enforcement and compliance verification.

8.2 The ruling strengthens the legal foundation for KRA’s investigative mandate but also raises policy concerns regarding potential abuse of these powers for politically motivated or selective enforcement.

8.3 The Court did not conclusively address mechanisms for preventing such misuse, suggesting a need for continued legislative oversight and administrative safeguards to ensure that enforcement actions remain fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 The decision in Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Attorney General & Kenya Revenue Authority [2020] eKLR stands as a definitive pronouncement that sections 57, 58(2), 59, and 99 of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 are constitutional.

9.2 The Court’s reasoning underscores the principle that while individual rights under the Constitution are fundamental, they are not absolute and must be balanced against the State’s legitimate interest in ensuring effective revenue collection.

9.3 Consequently, the Kenya Revenue Authority remains lawfully empowered to invoke its statutory powers under the TPA, subject to adherence to the principles of legality, proportionality, and confidentiality enshrined in the Constitution.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.