https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1205

Omollo v Republic (Criminal Application E004 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1205 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1205 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Eldoret Criminal Application E004 of 2025 WK Korir, JA June 26, 2026 Between Joseph Omollo Applicant and Republic Respondent (Being an application for extension of time to appeal against the conviction and sentence of the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Eldoret (Sewe, J.) dated 17th July 2018 in HCCRA No. 54 of 2018) Ruling 1.Joseph Omollo is before this Court through the notice of motion dated 17th July 2025 seeking leave to appeal against the judgment delivered by Sewe, J. on 17th July 2018 in Eldoret HCCRA No. 58 of 2018. The reason advanced for not filing an appeal within the stipulated period is that the applicant was not supplied with the High Court judgment to enable him draft an appeal on time. 2.Learned Principal Prosecution Counsel, Mr. Okaka, concedes to the application through submissions dated 29th April 2026. Counsel relies on the decision in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs. Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR for the proposition that the law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay so long as the delay is satisfactorily explained. According to counsel, the applicant’s averment that he did not receive the judgment timeously is plausible, and this Court should exercise its discretion in his favour. 3.The factors to be taken into account in determining an application for extension of time were condensed by the Supreme Court in Salat vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] KESC 12 (KLR) as follows:“This being the first case in which this Court is called upon to consider the principles for extension of time, we derive the following as the under-lying principles that a Court should consider in exercise of such discretion: 1.Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court; 2.A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court; 3.Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case to case basis; 4.Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court; 5.Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted; 6.Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and 7.Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.” 4.It is imperative to note that as held by the Supreme Court in Salat vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others (supra), extension of time is not a right of a litigant against the court, but a discretionary power of the courts which litigants have to lay a basis where they seek courts to grant it. 5.The reason advanced by the applicant is that he was not supplied with the High Court judgment in time to enable him draft an appeal. Unfortunately, this averment is bare as it does not disclose when the applicant applied for proceedings and when they were supplied. He does not offer any explanation as to whether he filed a notice of appeal, and if so, why he did not exhibit the notice of appeal. The impression one gets from the application is that the courts are so lethargic that they take almost eight years to supply proceedings. I do not think that is the case. In any event, the applicant’s averment amounts to shifting the blame for the delay to a third party without offering any plausible explanation as to the steps he took to remedy the problem. 6.In my view, the reason given is unsatisfactory, and the applicant has not convinced me that I should exercise discretion in his favour. As such, the application fails and is dismissed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.W. KORIR............................ JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a True copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR