[2018] KEHC 2685 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 2685 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant did not provide any plausible or sufficient reason for the delay of over one year in filing the appeal. The explanation that he was waiting for his family to hire a lawyer was deemed not credible, as most criminal appeals are filed by appellants in person. The applicant also failed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 2685 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Antony Kinyua Kivuti; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 31 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
FN Muchemi
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Criminal Appeals, Malicious Damage to Property
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Criminal Appeals Malicious Damage to Property

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antony Kinyua Kivuti

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal out of time under Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the delay of over one year in filing the appeal is reasonable and excusable under the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not provide any plausible or sufficient reason for the delay of over one year in filing the appeal. The explanation that he was waiting for his family to hire a lawyer was deemed not credible, as most criminal appeals are filed by appellants in person. The applicant also failed to provide any evidence of previous attempts to file applications through the prison system. The court held that the delay was unreasonable and that failure to explain the delay is fatal to an application for extension of time under Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to appeal out of time is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.