[2025] KECA 392 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had provided a plausible explanation for the delay in filing his notice of appeal, namely, the failure to be furnished with the High Court judgment in time. The respondent did not oppose the application and acknowledged the lengthy sentence imposed on the applicant. Applying the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 392 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Eipa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E004 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Leave to file appeal out of time granted.
- Judges
- JM Mativo
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Resentencing, Murder Conviction, Appeal Procedure
- 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
David Eipa
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time in light of the lengthy sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had provided a plausible explanation for the delay in filing his notice of appeal, namely, the failure to be furnished with the High Court judgment in time. The respondent did not oppose the application and acknowledged the lengthy sentence imposed on the applicant. Applying the principles set out in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v. Paul Kipkorir Kibet, the court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, holding that the delay was satisfactorily explained and that the interests of justice warranted granting leave to file the appeal out of time. The court directed the applicant to file the notice of appeal within 14 days and the memorandum and...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Leave to file appeal out of time granted.
Orders
- The applicant shall file his notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of this ruling.
- The applicant shall file the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal within 45 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Eipa v Republic (Criminal Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KECA 392 (KLR) (27 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 392 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Criminal Application E004 of 2025
JM Mativo, JA
February 27, 2025
[IN CHAMBERS]
Between
David Eipa
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an application for leave to file an appeal out of time from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Prof. J. Ngugi, J.) on 4th October, 2021 in CRPET. No. 214 of 2018)
Ruling
1. The application before the Court is dated 13th January 2025. The main prayer is for leave to appeal out of time against the ruling issued in CRPET. No. 214 of 2018, on 4th October 2021.
2. The applicant, David Eipa and his four accomplices were arraigned before the High Court in Criminal Case No. 115 of 2008 at Nakuru charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.After the hearing, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death.
3. The applicant’s appeal to this Court against conviction and sentence was dismissed. Having exhausted his appeal mechanisms, undeterred, vide High Court Criminal Petition No. 214 of 2018 the applicant petitioned the High Court for resentencing. Nevertheless, his petition was dismissed vide ruling delivered on 4th October 2021. Although aggrieved, the appellant failed to lodge his notice of appeal within the statutory-stipulated time of 14 days.
4. The applicant contends that he was not able to appeal on time because he was not furnished with the High Court judgment on time to enable him prepare his appeal on time.
5. In response to the application, vide written submissions dated 19th February 2025 Mr. S.K. Ruto Prosecution Counsel has amiably conceded to the leave application pointing to the lengthy sentence of 56 years imprisonment.
6. I have considered the application, the supporting affidavit sworn on 12th December 2024 and the respondent’s submissions dated 19th February 2025. I note that the present application invokes Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to enlarge the time to file his appeal. It is also evident that there has been a delay of approximately 3 years and 1 month. The Supreme Court of Kenya pronounced itself in the question of extension of time in the case of Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v. Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR, and stated as follows:“The law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay. All it states is that any delay should be satisfactorily explained. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.”
7. In applying the principles in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v. Paul Kipkorir Kibet (supra), and considering that the applicant is serving lengthy sentence, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in his favour. I direct the applicant to file his notice of appeal within the next 14 days and the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal within 45 days from today.
8. Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025J. MATIVOJUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.signed.DEPUTY REGISTRAR.