Tax Tribunal orders KRA to unfreeze Sonko’s bank accounts pending appeal

Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko /SCREENGRAB

The Tax Appeals Tribunal has directed the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) to lift agency notices that had frozen former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko’s bank accounts, pending the hearing and determination of his tax appeal.

In orders issued on Friday, the Tribunal directed KRA to unfreeze accounts which had been restricted under earlier enforcement action.

The decision, reached by consent of both parties, follows interim orders issued on April 14, 2026, which had suspended KRA’s enforcement measures pending further hearing.

The Tribunal had previously issued a stay on the agency notices, temporarily halting enforcement action until an inter partes hearing.

Tribunal chair Eunice Njeri had earlier ruled that “an order staying the enforcement of agency notices be and is hereby issued pending the hearing and determination of the application.”

The latest ruling extends that suspension, directing that the agency notices be lifted in respect of the affected accounts, allowing access to the accounts while the tax dispute remains unresolved.

The dispute stems from KRA’s issuance of agency notices targeting several of Sonko’s bank accounts in an effort to recover disputed tax liabilities.

Sonko moved to the Tribunal challenging the notices, arguing that the taxes in question remain contested and have not been determined.

In his application, he also sought a review and amendment of earlier orders issued in November 2025, stating that some accounts had been omitted from the list of accounts affected by the Tribunal’s directions.

He asked the Tribunal to correct what he termed clerical and accidental errors in the initial orders to ensure all accounts were included.

“That the Tribunal be pleased to correct any clerical and/or accidental errors in the said Order, including any erroneous or incomplete account numbers appearing therein,” he states in court documents.

He further argued that his banks could only act strictly within the wording of the Tribunal’s orders, meaning some accounts remained frozen despite the earlier ruling.

According to his filings, this resulted in partial enforcement, leaving some accounts inaccessible.

Sonko maintained that the omission was inadvertent and amounted to an error on the face of the record, requiring correction to give full effect to the Tribunal’s decision.

He also argued that it was in the interest of justice for all affected accounts to be fully captured in the amended orders.

The Tribunal noted that the matter remains under appeal and that the tax dispute has not yet been conclusively determined, maintaining suspension of enforcement actions while the case proceeds.