[2021] KEHC 2491 (KLR)
The court found that the application was unsigned, lacked any demonstration of pauperism, failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal, and did not provide the lower court case number. The application was considered bare and devoid of any material or substance to support the orders sought. Consequently, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2491 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Otieno Ochieng; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E104 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Appeals, Out of Time Appeals, Pauper Applications
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charles Otieno Ochieng
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient grounds for filing an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicant established pauperism to justify the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was unsigned, lacked any demonstration of pauperism, failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal, and did not provide the lower court case number. The application was considered bare and devoid of any material or substance to support the orders sought. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for failure to meet the threshold for granting leave to appeal out of time or to proceed as a pauper.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is hereby dismissed.
- File closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT SIAYA
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. E104 OF 2021
CORAM: R.E. ABURILI, J
CHARLES OTIENO OCHIENG.....APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC....................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. I have considered the application filed on 2/11/2021. I find the same not signed by the applicant. There is further no substance in the ‘application’ as there is no demonstration of pauperism and why the appellant never filed his appeal in time.
2. The Applicant does not state when his case was rejected under Section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as he has not even stated the case number for the lower court file if any was filed.
3. The Application is bare and devoid of any material and substance to support it to warrant grant of the orders sought. The application is hereby dismissed.
4. File closed.
5. Applicant to be notified through Prisons email used to send the ‘application.’
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE