[2025] KECA 1179 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicant had previously filed a similar application for extension of time (Criminal Application No. E125 of 2024), which was dismissed. The present application sought identical reliefs and was based on the same grounds, with the only difference being a typographical error in the case number...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 1179 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Kieru Kariuki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E029 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JM Mativo
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Abuse of Court Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Kieru Kariuki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to file an appeal against conviction and sentence after the statutory period has lapsed.
- 2 Whether the filing of a second application for extension of time, after a similar application was previously dismissed, constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant had previously filed a similar application for extension of time (Criminal Application No. E125 of 2024), which was dismissed. The present application sought identical reliefs and was based on the same grounds, with the only difference being a typographical error in the case number referenced. The Court held that it is not permissible for a litigant to file multiple applications seeking the same orders after a previous application has been determined. Such conduct amounts to an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 15th March 2025 for extension of time to appeal is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Kariuki v Republic (Criminal Application E029 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1179 (KLR) (1 July 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 1179 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Criminal Application E029 of 2025
JM Mativo, JA
July 1, 2025
Between
Peter Kieru Kariuki
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an application seeking extension of time to appeal against the conviction and sentence from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Kimaru & Musinga, JJ.) dated 9th May 2005 in CRA No. 460 of 2001 Criminal Appeal 460 of 2001 )
Ruling
1. The application before me is dated 15th March 2025. The main prayer is for extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment issued in HCCRA No. 460 of 2001, on 9th May 2005.
2. The applicant, Peter Kieru Kariuki was tried before the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Criminal Case No.1549 of 2001 at Naivasha with four counts of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. After a full trial, he was convicted on all the four counts. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed on both conviction and sentence. He failed to lodge his notice of appeal within the statutory stipulated time of 14 days.
3. As at the time of writing this ruling on 1st July 2025 at 0900 HRS, the respondent had not complied with the Court’s Case Management directions issued on 20th May 2025. Rule 58 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules stipulates:“(2)If the applicant appears or complies and the respondent fails to appear or comply, the application shall proceed in the absence of the respondent, unless the Court sees fit to adjourn the hearing...”
4. Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules gives the Court unfettered discretion to “… extend the time limited by these Rules, or by any decision of the Court or of a Superior Court, for the doing of any act authorized or required by these Rules, whether before or after the doing of the act …,” on such terms as it thinks just (see Fakir Mohammed vs. Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others [2005] eKLR).
5. I note that the instant application seeks similar orders and replicates Criminal Application No. E125 of 2024 filed before this Court, which was heard by Gachoka, JA and dismissed vide ruling dated 15th November 2024. By accident or design, the applicant states that the intended appeal is against the judgment in HCCRA 460 of 2001, instead of HCCRA No. 60 of 2001. His previous application seeking extension of time having been dismissed, it is not open for the applicant to mount a similar application seeking similar orders. That being the position, I find this application devoid of merit and is an abuse of the Court process. It is hereby dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025. J. MATIVO.............................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.Signed.DEPUTY REGISTRAR.