[2022] KEHC 2301 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 2301 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause as required under Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant's explanation that he relied on relatives to hire a lawyer due to financial constraints did not satisfy the statutory test, as he neither substantiated his claim of having...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 2301 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jared Bichanga; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 1 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
MC Kesse
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Good Cause Requirement
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Good Cause Requirement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jared Bichanga

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated good cause for extension of time to file an appeal under Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause as required under Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant's explanation that he relied on relatives to hire a lawyer due to financial constraints did not satisfy the statutory test, as he neither substantiated his claim of having filed an appeal at Nakuru nor showed that he was unable to obtain the judgment or proceedings in time. The court emphasized that criminal proceedings and appeals are filed at no cost, and the applicant's delay of seven years was not justified by the reasons provided. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to deny the extension of time to appeal.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file appeal is dismissed.