There is a quiet fear that grips many Kenyan taxpayers the moment a tax demand lands in their inbox or on iTax. It is not just the amount. It is the feeling that, somehow, the numbers are final, that the decision has already been made, and that you are expected to fight an uphill battle to prove your innocence.
That fear is now at the centre of a constitutional petition before the High Court of Kenya.
In Petition No. E002 of 2026, filed at the Constitutional and Human Rights Division in Milimani, a group of taxpayers has taken on the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), the Attorney General, Parliament, and the Senate. Their grievance is not about refusing to pay tax. It is about fairness, justice, and whether the law has quietly tilted the scales too far against the ordinary taxpayer.
The Law Being Challenged
At the heart of this case is Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015. In simple terms, the section says that when a taxpayer objects to a tax decision made by KRA, the burden of proof lies on the taxpayer to show that KRA’s decision is wrong.
On paper, this may sound technical. In real life, it is deeply personal.
It means that once KRA issues an assessment, even one running into millions, the law assumes it is correct. The taxpayer must then gather documents, explanations, expert opinions, and sometimes legal representation, all to prove that the assessment should never have been made in the first place.
The petitioners argue that this legal position quietly flips justice on its head.
Why the Petitioners Say This Is Unconstitutional
The petitioners’ case is emotional because it is grounded in lived experience. They argue that Section 56(1) creates a dangerous assumption: that KRA is right by default and that the taxpayer is wrong until they can prove otherwise.
They contend that this approach violates the Constitution in several ways.
First, they rely on Article 50, which protects the right to a fair hearing. In their view, fairness cannot exist where one party, especially a powerful state agency, is never required to explain or justify how it arrived at its figures.
Second, they argue that the provision undermines the principle that decisions affecting citizens must be reasonable, transparent, and accountable. If KRA does not have to demonstrate the basis of its assessment, then taxpayers are left guessing, defending themselves against numbers whose origin they may never fully understand.
Third, the petition paints a troubling picture of how this legal framework can be abused. It alleges that exaggerated or unrealistic tax figures have, in some cases, been used to pressure taxpayers into settling or paying bribes simply to make the problem go away. Whether or not the court ultimately agrees, the concern itself is one that resonates with many Kenyans.
What Have Courts Said in the Past?
This is not the first time Kenyan courts have been asked to examine the burden of proof in tax disputes.
Historically, courts have tended to uphold the position that tax objections are civil proceedings, not criminal ones. Because of this, they have ruled that the taxpayer, as the party challenging a decision, must present evidence to support their objection.
Several High Court and Tax Appeals Tribunal decisions have affirmed this principle, often reasoning that KRA relies on information provided by taxpayers themselves when making assessments. If that information is incomplete or inaccurate, the taxpayer must explain why.
However, what makes this new petition different is its constitutional framing. Instead of focusing narrowly on tax procedure, the petition asks a bigger question: Can administrative convenience override constitutional fairness?
Why This Case Matters to Ordinary Kenyans
This case matters because taxes touch every part of life.
It affects small business owners struggling to keep records in a difficult economy.
It affects professionals suddenly facing retrospective assessments.
It affects startups, freelancers, and even salaried employees caught in system errors they did not create.
For many taxpayers, objecting to a KRA assessment already feels intimidating. Add legal costs, tight timelines, and a presumption that you are wrong, and the process can feel less like justice and more like survival.
Whether the court ultimately agrees with the petitioners or not, this case forces a national conversation about power, accountability, and trust between the state and its citizens.
What Could Happen Next
If the court agrees with the petitioners, the decision could fundamentally change how tax objections are handled in Kenya. KRA may be required to clearly justify its assessments before the burden shifts to the taxpayer.
If the court dismisses the petition, the current system will remain, but the concerns raised will not disappear. They will continue to echo in boardrooms, courtrooms, and ordinary homes where tax disputes are fought quietly and painfully.
Either way, this is a case that goes beyond tax law. It is about whether the law listens when citizens say, “This does not feel fair.”
Final Thought
Tax law should never feel like a punishment for trying to comply.
This petition reminds us that behind every assessment is a human being, a business owner, a professional, a parent, trying to do the right thing. Whether the court agrees or not, the courage to question power is itself an important act.
What do you think?
Should taxpayers always carry the burden, or should the taxman also be required to explain himself?
Join the conversation. Share your experience. Comment below.
Legal Express Kenya, Legal News, Views, and Reviews that matter
Leave a Reply