[2024] KECA 1745 (KLR)
The court found that the delay of almost three years in filing the notice of appeal was inordinate and that the applicant failed to provide any material evidence demonstrating attempts to obtain the judgment or a plausible explanation for the delay. Consequently, the court held that there was no merit in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KECA 1745 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Leonard Kipyegon Cheruiyot; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E174 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MA Warsame
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Defilement Offence, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Leonard Kipyegon Cheruiyot
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the notice of appeal.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the notice of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay of almost three years in filing the notice of appeal was inordinate and that the applicant failed to provide any material evidence demonstrating attempts to obtain the judgment or a plausible explanation for the delay. Consequently, the court held that there was no merit in the application and dismissed it, declining to exercise its discretion to extend time.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Cheruiyot v Republic (Criminal Application E174 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1745 (KLR) (4 December 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECA 1745 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Criminal Application E174 of 2024
MA Warsame, JA
December 4, 2024
Between
Leonard Kipyegon Cheruiyot
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(An application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal, against the judgment of the High Court at Bomet (Lagat-Korir, J.) dated 30th September 2021, in HCCRA No. 001 OF 2020)
Ruling
1. The applicant, (Leonard Kipyegon) was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act in Criminal Case No. 70 of 2019 at Bomet. His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court on 30th September 2021. However, he failed to lodge his notice of appeal within the stipulated time and has filed the present application dated 10th July 2024 seeking to enlarge the time to appeal
2. The applicant contends that he was not able to appeal on time because he was not supplied with the Court’s Judgment. Rule 4 of this Court’s Rules allows the Court to exercise discretion to extend the time limited by the Rules for the doing of any act authorised or required by the Rules. In Leo Sila Mutiso vs. Helen Wangari Mwangi [1999] 2 EA, this Court held as follows:“It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well settled that in general the matters which this court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are: first, the length of the delay: secondly, the reason for the delay: thirdly (possibly), the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted: and, fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted”.
3. The respondent has through written submission conceded to the application and has submitted that given the long sentence imposed by the High Court, the applicant should be given an opportunity to appeal.
4. In my view, the delay of almost 3 years is inordinate and no material has been placed before the court to demonstrate that the applicant made any attempts to obtain the judgment.Consequently, having found no plausible explanation for the delay, I find no merit in the application and dismiss the same.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024. M. WARSAME…………………………****JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR