In an email sent to paid subscribers yesterday, Zoom announced that starting Aug. 1, the Kenyan government will levy a 16 per cent VAT to be borne by the customer.

“Like many companies with a growing international presence, Zoom is routinely evaluating its indirect tax collection and remittance obligations,” the company said.

“The application of these taxes to business with online activities is a complex and evolving area. Zoom continues to review such developments, as well as the nature and extent of its activities in different jurisdictions, and, based on such regular review, will start charging indirect taxes where applicable,” the message read in part.”

Zoom currently prices its lowest subscription package, which offers unlimited group meetings among other perks at Ksh15,000 (about $150), while the highest-paid package costs Ksh25,000 ($250) per year. With the VAT implementation, Kenyan individuals and companies will now pay at least Ksh2,500 ($25) more for the cheapest package and at least Ksh4,100 ($41) more for the highest-priced package.

Zoom is not the only digital service to recently fall under the microscope of the Kenyan taxman. Last year, Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) introduced the Finance Act 2020 Digital Service Taxes (DST) on income from services provided through the digital marketplace in Kenya, which is charged at 1.5 per cent of the gross value of a transaction (exclusive of VAT). The regulation requires individuals and firms that supply or expects to supply taxable goods and services worth at least Ksh5 million ($50,000) in a year to register for VAT. However, Kenyans registered for VAT will be exempted from paying the tax.

Mr Macharia accused Safaricom of denying him employment as a customer care executive based on his disability and sued for compensation for discrimination and violation of his rights.

He told Justice James Makau that he responded to an advert by Safaricom in August 2016 for a customer experience executive position, which invited qualified Kenyans irrespective of “race, colour, religion, gender, tribal origin, disability or age”.

Along with other persons living with disabilities (PWDs), Macharia explained that he was shortlisted for the role and went through the oral interview and medical test, except for the SHL computerised aptitude test, which was removed for the PWDs so that they were not unduly disadvantaged by the interview process. He was later invited to sign the contract of employment in July 2017. However, the network operator said the invite was erroneous.

Safaricom, in its defence, denied discrimination claims, as well as the plaintiff’s assertion that his rights were violated. The network operator argued that it allowed Macharia to be interviewed for the role of a customer care executive but lacked the specialised software that would enable visually impaired persons to work. The company also noted that it employed 11 other persons living with disabilities for the same role as their disability did not affect their ability to work.

The judge ruled in the plaintiff’s favour that Safaricom violated Mr Macharia’s rights and failed to treat him with dignity. In his speech, the Judge explained that Safaricom should have informed Mr Macharia earlier that the software was unavailable instead of subjecting him to the interview process and inviting him to sign a contract, only to claim later that letter of invitation was sent to him erroneously.

“I find that the Respondent’s excuse to be an afterthought that was introduced late to the detriment of the Petitioner. The Respondent knew right from the beginning that the Petitioner’s work called for software, yet they took him through all recruitment steps,” Justice Makau ruled.”

He added that Mr Macharia must have suffered great humiliation from fellow candidates, family members and friends.

The court, however, absolved Safaricom of any claim of discrimination, noting that Mr Macharia had not shown that he was mistreated during the interviews.