Kifaru Industries: Year-End Judgements on Cut-Off, Impairment and a Contingent Claim
Kifaru Industries Ltd, a Nairobi-based manufacturer, has a 31 December 2025 year end and an overall materiality of KES 5,000,000. Three matters remain unresolved at the audit clearance meeting. First, on 20 December the company invoiced a customer KES 6,500,000 for customised goods costing KES 4,200,000; the goods are boxed in a segregated bay, the customer requested delivery in March 2026, has paid a 30% deposit, and the contract contains no acceptance clause. Second, a distributor's balance of KES 12,000,000 is 210 days overdue; KES 3,000,000 is formally disputed and the distributor has proposed a 10-month payment plan for the remainder, resuming payments in February 2026. Third, a former employee's suit claims KES 18,000,000; counsel rates an outflow as probable and estimates a range of KES 6,000,000 to KES 8,000,000. Profit before these items is KES 42,000,000.
1. Evaluate whether the KES 6,500,000 invoice may be recognised as revenue at 31 December 2025, and quantify the effect on profit if recognition is reversed.
Read the worked answer
Framework. Revenue is recognised when control of the goods transfers. A bill-and-hold arrangement qualifies only where all of the following are demonstrated: a substantive reason for the arrangement, the goods are separately identified as belonging to the customer, they are ready for delivery, and the customer can direct their use. A deposit alone is not evidence of control.
Assessment.
- Goods are customised, so the entity cannot readily redirect them - this supports the customer having the risks and rewards.
- The goods are physically segregated and identified to the customer.
- The delay was requested by the customer for its own reasons, which can be substantive if documented (e.g. customer warehouse not ready) rather than a financing or stock-shifting motive.
- The absence of an acceptance clause removes one barrier, but the file must still show the customer's ability to direct use and a fixed delivery date.
Conclusion. Recognition is defensible only if the four criteria are documented in the contract or correspondence. On the facts as stated, documentation is thin: the delivery date is 'March 2026', no storage agreement exists, and risk of loss in storage is unaddressed. The prudent and supportable position is to defer recognition and hold the goods as inventory.
Quantification.
| Item | KES |
|---|---|
| Reverse revenue | (6,500,000) |
| Reverse cost of sales | 4,200,000 |
| Net profit reduction | (2,300,000) |
| Inventory reinstated | 4,200,000 |
The 30% deposit (KES 1,950,000) remains a contract liability. The KES 2,300,000 misstatement is below overall materiality in isolation, but must be aggregated with other uncorrected differences; a pattern of cut-off items above KES 1,000,000 each would be treated as material in aggregate. Recommend it is corrected and the cut-off review extended to December dispatches.
2. Compute the impairment allowance on the KES 12,000,000 distributor balance and justify the staging and loss rates you apply.
Read the worked answer
Staging.
- KES 3,000,000 formally disputed → credit-impaired (Stage 3); recognise lifetime losses, assessed individually.
- KES 9,000,000 subject to a restructured 10-month plan → significant increase in credit risk since origination (Stage 2); lifetime expected credit loss applies, not a 12-month figure. The 210-day delinquency and the concession are the triggers.
Loss rates (judgement, documented).
| Component | Balance | Stage | Rate | Allowance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disputed | 3,000,000 | 3 | 100% | 3,000,000 |
| Restructured | 9,000,000 | 2 | 25% | 2,250,000 |
| Total | 12,000,000 | 5,250,000 |
Why 100% on the disputed portion. The amount is contested in writing, no settlement timetable exists and the counterparty has already defaulted on other amounts; recovery is speculative. A partial rate (say 70%) would need evidence of an enforceable settlement.
Why not the standard matrix. The generic ageing matrix would apply roughly 20% to a 180+ day bucket and ignore the forbearance. Using the matrix alone understates the allowance because it does not reflect the concession or the dispute.
Sensitivity to disclose. If the restructured balance were held in Stage 3 at 60%, the allowance would rise to KES 8,400,000 - an additional KES 3,150,000 charge. The recoverable amount should be tested against any security held; if unsecured, 25% is generous and 40% is more prudent. Recommend the higher rate unless a signed and adhered-to payment plan with two consecutive instalments exists.
3. Determine the accounting treatment and disclosure for the litigation claim, and state what you would recommend to the directors.
Read the worked answer
Recognition test. A provision is recognised where there is a present obligation from a past event, an outflow is probable, and the amount can be reliably estimated. Counsel has confirmed probability and given a range, so the test is met.
Measurement. The provision is the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle. Where a range exists and no single point is more likely than any other, the midpoint of the range is an acceptable best estimate:
Midpoint = (6,000,000 + 8,000,000) ÷ 2 = KES 7,000,000.
The KES 18,000,000 claimed is not the measure - claims are routinely pleaded high. Do not discount over a short expected settlement period unless the timing is long.
Presentation and disclosure.
- Recognise KES 7,000,000 as an expense and a provision, not as a contingent liability.
- Disclose the nature of the obligation, the uncertainty, the range and the fact that reimbursement (if any) has not been recognised.
- Do not disclose information that would seriously prejudice the entity's position in the dispute.
Recommendation to the directors.
- Book KES 7,000,000 before the accounts are approved; combined with the KES 2,300,000 cut-off reversal this is KES 9,300,000, which exceeds overall materiality and cannot be left uncorrected.
- Obtain a written legal confirmation dated close to the approval date, since facts can move.
- Reassess going concern and any loan covenants: revised profit is KES 42,000,000 − 2,300,000 − 7,000,000 = KES 32,700,000, and covenant headroom should be re-tested on that figure.
- Ensure the audit committee minutes record the judgement, so the estimate is defensible if challenged.