[2018] KEHC 8409 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 8409 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the three-year delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time was not credible or plausible. While communication breakdowns between the Prisons Department and the court registry can occur, a delay of three years is unreasonably long and not satisfactorily explained....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 8409 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Josephat Murigia; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 46 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Conviction and Sentence, Grievous Harm Offence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Out of Time Conviction and Sentence Grievous Harm Offence

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephat Murigia

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient and credible reasons for the inordinate delay of three years in seeking leave to appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has overwhelming chances of success to warrant extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the three-year delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time was not credible or plausible. While communication breakdowns between the Prisons Department and the court registry can occur, a delay of three years is unreasonably long and not satisfactorily explained. The court also noted that the applicant's case had already been considered by two courts, and there was no compelling reason to grant the extension. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the application for extension of time to appeal out of time.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

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