https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1183

Tuei v Republic (Criminal Application E026 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1183 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1183 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru Criminal Application E026 of 2026 AI Hassan, JA June 19, 2026 Between Emmanuel Kipyegon Tuei Applicant and Republic Respondent (Being an application for extension of time to appeal the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Bomet (J. K Ng’arng’ar, J.) delivered on 19th May, 2025 in HCCRA NO. E020 OF 2023) Ruling 1.The applicant Emmanuel Kipyegon Tuei seeks an extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time against a decision of the High Court of Kenya at Bomet in Criminal Appeal No. E020 of 2023, which upheld his conviction and sentence for the offence of defilement. 2.The application is dated 30th April 2026 and is brought under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. It is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant on even date. In it, the applicant explains that the delay in lodging the appeal within the statutory period was occasioned by a delay in obtaining typed court proceedings and a copy of the judgment. He avers that he requested certified copies of the proceedings and judgment on 30th May 2025, but was only notified by the court on 28th December 2025 that the proceedings were ready. He attributes further delay to the fact that he was unable to secure anyone to collect the proceedings on his behalf until 9th January 2026. The applicant also contends that he was not in a position to promptly instruct an Advocate to prepare and lodge the application. 3.The Supreme Court in Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others (Application 16 of 2014) [2014] crystallised the principles governing extension of time as follows:i.Extension of time being not a right of a party, but an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court;ii.The party who seeks extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the Court;iii.Whether the Court should exercise the discretion to extend time is a consideration to be made on a case-by-case basis;iv.Where there is a reasonable cause for the delay, the same should be expressed to the satisfaction of the Court;v.Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if extension is granted;vi.Whether the application has been brought without undue delay;vii.In certain cases, like election matters, public interest should be a consideration for extending time. 4.The delay in lodging the instant application is approximately one year. I find that such delay is not inordinate. The applicant explains that it was occasioned by the protracted process of obtaining typed proceedings and a copy of the judgment. While the delay is not excessive, I am mindful of the constraints under which an incarcerated prisoner without legal representation must operate in seeking legal redress. In the circumstances, I consider it just to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant to enable him to pursue his right of appeal. 5.In the result, I allow the application and direct that the applicant do file a notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.The prison authorities should extend to the applicant such assistance as will ensure the notice is filed and lodged at the registry of this Court within the time I have stipulated. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.AHMED ISSACK...................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a True copy of the originalSignedDeputy Registrar