Gathonjia v Reblic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E068 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12268 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **AT NAKURU** **CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. E068 of 2025** HIRAM MWANGI GATHONJIA ....................................... APPLICANT VERSUS REBLIC ……………………………................................. RESPONDENT **RULING** 1. **Hiram Mwangi Gathonjia,** the Applicant herein took out the motion dated 22nd April, 2025 whereof he sought for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal. The Applicant filed an affidavit he swore in support of the motion. The Director of Public Prosecutions filed grounds of opposition to oppose the motion. 2. It is the submission of the applicant that he did not appeal on time for lack of the judgment and typed proceedings. He averred that he relied on his relatives to hire an advocate but they failed to do so thus leading him to be late in filing the appeal. 3. It is the submissions of the Respondent that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant application under the provisions of rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. 4. It is the averment of the Respondent that the motion is incompetent, bad in law, an abuse of the court process and ought to be struck out. 5. The background of this matter is that the applicant was tried on a charge of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the **Naivasha Chief Magistrate’s Court vide Naivasha Chief Magistrate Criminal Case No. 1698 of 2013.** 6. The applicant appealed to the High Court vide **Nakuru High Court Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2013.** The appeal was dismissed on 16th May 2014. 7. The applicant has argued that he has not filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of this court within the prescribed time because he had not been supplied with the judgment and proceedings. 8. The respondent has raised a Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the application. 9. A careful consideration of Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules shows that the Court of Appeal is given the discretion to hear and determine an application for extension of time limited for doing of any act authorized or required by the Rules. However, under section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction, the High court is given power to hear and determine an application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal or for making an application for leave to appeal. 10. I am satisfied that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant application therefore the Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent. This court is satisfied that the applicant has given plausible reasons for his delay to file the appeal within the prescribed period. Consequently, the applicant is granted an extension of time by 14 days to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of this court which was delivered on 16th May, 2014. **Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 29th day of July, 2026.** **J. K. SERGON** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Rutoh/Jamleck C/A Miss Anyumba for Respondent N/A for the Applicant.