- Siemens has filed a judicial review case against the Kenya Revenue Authority over a Sh467.2 million tax refund claim.
- The company submitted the refund application in October 2022 and says KRA received it on November 1 that year.
- Siemens argues that KRA was required to communicate its decision within 90 days.
- The company says the statutory period expired without a decision and is asking the High Court to compel KRA to process and pay the refund.
- Siemens is also seeking interest at one per cent per month and costs of the court case.
- The dispute is separate from a previous Siemens tax case in which KRA was cleared to collect Sh586.3 million.
Siemens has taken the Kenya Revenue Authority to the High Court in Nairobi over a tax refund worth more than Sh467 million. The German technology company wants the court to intervene after what it describes as a prolonged failure by the tax authority to resolve its refund application. The company has filed a judicial review application challenging KRA’s handling of the claim. It is seeking an order requiring the authority to process and pay the outstanding amount.
Court documents show that Siemens lodged the application on October 31, 2022. KRA received the claim the following day, on November 1, 2022. Siemens maintains that the authority was bound by the statutory deadline governing tax refund applications. According to the company, that deadline passed without KRA communicating a decision.
The amount at the centre of the dispute is Sh467,225,012. Siemens wants the court to compel KRA to pay the principal sum. It is also asking for interest at one per cent per month from December 1, 2024, until the money is settled in full. The company has further asked the court to award it the costs of the proceedings.
The legal argument largely revolves around Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act. The provision sets out the procedure that applies when a taxpayer seeks a refund of taxes it believes were overpaid. KRA may examine the claim and conduct an audit before making a determination. The law then requires the Commissioner to notify the taxpayer of the decision within 90 days of receiving the application.
Siemens argues that the deadline applicable to its claim expired in January 2023. The company contends that KRA’s failure to make a determination within the prescribed period had legal consequences under Section 47. It is asking the High Court to declare the delay unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
The law also provides a mechanism for dealing with an approved overpayment where the taxpayer owes other taxes. In such circumstances, the overpaid amount can first be applied against outstanding tax liabilities. Any balance remaining after that adjustment is then subject to refund.
Section 47 further provides for payment of an approved refund within two years of the application. Where the amount remains unpaid after that period, the law provides for interest at one per cent per month or part of a month. Siemens says its claim has remained unresolved well beyond the statutory timelines.
Siemens Seeks Interest on the Outstanding Amount
The company is not only asking for the principal refund. Its court application also seeks interest calculated at one per cent every month from December 1, 2024. That interest would continue until the amount is fully paid, if the court grants the orders sought.
Siemens has also challenged what it considers KRA’s continued retention of the funds. The company argues that the handling of the refund has implications under constitutional protections concerning taxation and property. The court will therefore be required to consider the company’s legal arguments as well as KRA’s response to the application.
The dispute comes against a wider background of litigation over delayed tax refunds in Kenya. In a 2025 case involving another taxpayer, the Tax Appeals Tribunal found that KRA had acted outside the statutory timeline when it made refund decisions years after applications had been lodged. The tribunal held that the applications had been allowed by operation of law and ordered KRA to refund the amounts.
The new court battle should not be confused with a separate tax dispute involving Siemens that was determined in 2024. In that case, the Tax Appeals Tribunal cleared KRA to collect Sh586.3 million from Siemens AG. The dispute arose from tax assessments connected to the company’s work on the Ethiopia-Kenya electricity transmission line converter station at Suswa.
That project involved Siemens AG and Spanish contractor Isolux Ingeniera, which had entered into an agreement with Kenya Electricity Transmission Company for construction of the Suswa converter station. Siemens Germany was the lead consortium member. A local Siemens permanent establishment, known as SAG Kenya PE, was created in connection with the project.
The tax authority’s assessment covered issues arising from the company’s operations and the treatment of costs connected to the project. The Tax Appeals Tribunal ultimately upheld KRA’s assessment and allowed the authority to pursue the Sh586.3 million tax demand.
The earlier dispute and the latest refund case involve different claims. The current High Court application concerns money Siemens says KRA owes it following an overpayment and the authority’s alleged failure to determine the refund within the statutory period.
Siemens is now seeking judicial intervention to resolve the refund dispute. The company wants the court to declare KRA’s handling of its application unlawful and direct the tax authority to process and pay the Sh467.2 million. It is also seeking the statutory interest and costs associated with the proceedings.
The case places the focus on the timelines governing tax refunds and the consequences when those deadlines are not met. For Siemens, the central issue is whether its 2022 application should have been determined within the 90-day period and what legal effect followed from KRA’s alleged failure to do so.
KRA will have an opportunity to respond to the company’s allegations before the court determines the application. Until the court makes a determination, Siemens’ claims remain matters for judicial consideration.
