https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7536

Balamu v Republic (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Application E051 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7536 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (2 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7536 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Application E051 of 2025 REA Ougo, J June 2, 2026 Between Felix Ojwang Balamu Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.What is before this court for determination is the Notice of Motion application dated 19th November, 2025, in which the Applicant is seeking the following orders :a.Spentb.The honorable court be pleased to grant leave and/or admit the applicants notice of motion of appeal and petition appeal as filed out of time.c.Such other orders as the court deems fit for the interest of justice 2.The Applicant was convicted in the Milimani Anti-Corruption Magistrate’s court in respect of Criminal case MCAC No. E009/2025 and charged with four counts constituting the offences of:a.Fraudulent accusation of public property contrary to section 48 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act 2003b.Forgery contrary to section 345 as read together with section 349 of the Penal Code.c.Deceiving a principal contrary to section 41(2) as read together with section 48 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act 2003d.Presentation of a forged certificate contrary to section 34(a) of the Kenya National examination council 3.The trial magistrate found the Applicant guilty of three(3) counts and acquitted him on count Two(2). He was thereafter fined Kshs. 8,600,000, failure to which he would serve a jail term of ten(10) years. 4.It is averred by the advocate for the applicant on record that he wrote a letter to the trial court seeking both a copy of the judgment and typed proceedings on 5th November, 2025 and filed a notice of appeal on the same date following the sentencing on 4th November, 2025. The certified copy of the judgment was obtained on the 18th November 2025, and the typed proceedings still remain unavailable. They seek the court to admit the appeal as filed. 5.The respondent opposed the application. It was submitted that the law is settled on what an applicant must establish for the court to exercise its discretion in the applicant’s favour. The court has the discretion to do so. The court will consider the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and the likelihood of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted (see Sila Munyao Mutiso vs Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1999] 2EA). It was further submitted that the Supreme Court has set out the principles to be considered in determining an application for extension of time, as follows. Extension of time is not a right of the party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court; a party who seeks an extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court; whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time is a matter to be decided on a case-by-case basis; whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay, the delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the court; whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted; and whether the application has been brought without undue delay. 6.The application was canvassed through written submissions. The submissions reiterate and expound on what is stated in the affidavits. 7.Extension of time is a discretionary power grantable on well-settled principles. In Fakir Mohammed vs Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others [2005] eKLR, the Court reiterated such principles as the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, the degree of prejudice to the respondent, and the conduct of the parties. (See also Leo Sila Mutiso v Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1991] eKLR). 8.Applying these principles to the present application, the applicant has demonstrated the reason for the delay by writing to the Magistrate's court on 5th November 2025 to request a copy of the judgment and typed proceedings. This was after the judgment was delivered on 28th October, 2025. Unexplained delays are fatal. For instance, in Bi-Mach Engineers Ltd v James Kahoro Mwangi [2011] eKLR, an extension was refused where the delay lacked explanation. 9.The delay is explained by the applicant's failure to furnish the proceeding, which is excusable. In Dilpack Kenya Ltd v William Muthama Kitonyi [2021] eKLR, it was held that indolent litigants cannot use applications for extension of time to sanitise irregular appeals. But in this case, I find none. The application was filed within a reasonable time on 18th November 2025. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay, provided it is satisfactorily explained by the applicant and is acceptable to this court. The grounds of appeal in the attached petition raise issues regarding the evidence adduced before the trial court, the conviction, and the sentence. 10.The application is merited. The Application dated 19th November, 2025 is hereby allowed as prayed. Costs shall be in the cause. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2026.R.E.OUGOJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Asembo for the ApplicantRsepondent AbsentAdan C/A