The High Court in Nairobi has struck out a judicial review application by a local firm seeking to stop the taxman from auctioning 56 containers of medical equipment.
Read Also
Equip Agencies Limited sought to quash a decision by the Kenya Revenue Authority to auction its goods, after discovering a notice on July 24, 2025, scheduling their imported goods for auction the very next day.
The company claimed the move was arbitrary and procedurally unfair.
Divyesh Indubhai Patel, a director at Equip Agencies, told the court that the firm was blindsided by the announcement, as they had not received any formal communication, demand letter or warning of non-compliance.
"Further, that there was no communication whatsoever indicating a breach, forfeiture, or need for redemption,” court records show.
“The respondents failed to comply with the requirements of the East African Community Customs Management Act and Fair Administrative Action Act, both of which require notification and an opportunity to be heard.”
“Furthermore, the timeline given less than 24 hours between publication and scheduled auction denied the applicant any meaningful or reasonable opportunity to respond, regularise its position, or seek redress.”
However, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Control held that the goods had lain uncleared for months.
Wycliffe Musili, an officer of the second respondent, testified that the applicant had ignored multiple opportunities to redeem the cargo over two years.
He noted that a formal warning was published in the Kenya Gazette, Notice No 4452 of April 12, 2024, warning that unless the goods were removed within 30 days, they would be sold by public auction.
“The applicant had more than 12 months to remove the impugned goods from the customs warehouse or the auction list,” the respondent’s submissions stated.
Thirteen of the 16 containers were sold on July 25, 2025 before the court intervened.
The KRA maintained that the suit was premature and offended the "doctrine of exhaustion," which requires litigants to use available statutory remedies before seeking judicial review.
Justice John Chigiti agreed with the tax authority, noting that the court's power in such matters is discretionary and should not be used to bypass established legal procedures.
The judge ruled that the company failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before rushing to court, saying the dispute fell within the ambit of the East African Community Customs Management Act, which requires aggrieved parties to first seek review from the Commissioner of Customs.
“The applicant did not exhaust the alternative redress mechanisms that are provided for under the Act,” the ruling stated.
The court further observed that arguments about selective enforcement and lack of individualised notice had been raised only in submissions, not in the pleadings and were therefore procedurally impermissible.
