Smith Beta
Read this first — limitations.
- Patterns reflect published decisions only.
- This is not an assessment of private character, integrity or bias.
- Outcome distributions are per case-type and not comparable across courts/years.
- Based on 3 decision(s); small samples are indicative only.
- Name normalization is automatic and may merge or split judges incorrectly.
Main subject areas
Documented reasoning patterns
- Most common procedural postures: Appeal from a decision to assess excise duty (1), Appeal from a decision rejecting objections to tax assessments (1), Appeal from a tax assessment (1)
- [Tax Appeal] outcomes — Affirmed the assessment: 2/3, Affirmed: 1/3
Writing characteristics
- Median judgment length ~109655 words
- Includes panel decisions
Citation patterns
- Avg cited authorities/decision: 0.0
- Frequently applied statutes: Excise Duty Act 2015 (2), Finance Act 2022 (2), Excise Duty Act, 2015 (1), Finance Act, 2021 (1), Finance Act, 2022 (1)
Sample decisions
Nairobi Plastics Limited v Commissioner of Legal Services and Board Coordination (Tax Appeal 26 of 2023) [2023] KETAT 886 (KLR) (8 December 2023) (Judgment)
Tax Appeals Tribunal · [2023] KETAT 886 (KLR) · 8 December 2023
Nairobi Plastics Limited v Commissioner of Legal Services and Board Coordination (Tax Appeal 25 of 2023) [2023] KETAT 887 (KLR) (8 December 2023) (Judgment)
Tax Appeals Tribunal · [2023] KETAT 887 (KLR) · 8 December 2023
Blowplast Limited v Commissioner of Legal Services and Board Coordination (Tax Appeal E340 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 753 (KLR) (9 May 2024) (Judgment)
Tax Appeals Tribunal · [2024] KETAT 753 (KLR) · 9 May 2024