[2024] KEHC 1804 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay—waiting for relatives to engage legal counsel due to financial constraints—did not demonstrate diligence or constitute sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of over two years in filing the application. The court emphasized that such generalized...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 1804 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bonface Kerema; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E003 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Robbery With Violence, Conviction and Sentence
- 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
Bonface Kerema
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the notice of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to extend time for filing a notice of appeal in criminal matters.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay—waiting for relatives to engage legal counsel due to financial constraints—did not demonstrate diligence or constitute sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of over two years in filing the application. The court emphasized that such generalized reasons could be cited by anyone and do not meet the threshold for extension of time. Furthermore, the application was not filed timeously. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for extension of time to file an appeal, but clarified that this decision does not preclude the applicant from seeking relief from the Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file an appeal is dismissed.
- The applicant is not precluded from seeking relief from the Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Kerema v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E003 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 1804 (KLR) (27 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1804 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Narok
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E003 of 2022
F Gikonyo, J
February 27, 2024
Between
Bonface Kerema
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Revision from Original Conviction and Sentence in Narok CMCR No.31 of 2016, and Narok HCCRA NO. 138 of 2017)
Ruling
Leave to appeal out of time. 1. Before the court is an application dated 12/01/2022. The applicant is seeking for extension of time to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
2. The intended appeal emanates from the judgement of Hon. Justice Bwonwong’a J. in Narok HCCRA No. 138 of 2017 delivered on 11th December 2019 in which the Applicant was sentenced to death for the offence of Robbery with violence contrary to Section 295 as read with Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code.
3. In an Affidavit annexed to the application, the applicant deposed that he could not appeal on time because he relied on relatives who promised to hire a lawyer for him but could not do so due to financial constraints.
4. Ms. Rakama prosecution counsel urged this court to consider the file and decide.
Directions of the court 5. This court directed on 20/11/2023 for a copy of the judgment by the High court to be transmitted to the applicant.
6. On 23/01/2024, this court directed that the appeal file be submitted to this court.
Analysis and Determination 7. In accordance with Rule 61: -(1)Any person who desires to appeal to the Court shall give notice in writing, which shall be lodged in sextuplicate with the registrar of the superior court at the place where the decision against which it is desired to appeal was given, within fourteen days of the date of that decision, and the notice of appeal shall institute the appeal.
8. The power to extend time for the filing of a notice of appeal in criminal cases is a substantive business of the Court of Appeal, but, with Rule 64(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules contemplating a situation where ‘the time has been extended by order of the superior court’.
9. Be that as it may, the judgment the applicant intends to appeal against was delivered on 11th December 2019. The application herein was filed on 20. 01. 2022, over 2 years from the date of judgment. The delay has not been sufficiently explained. Merely stating that he was waiting for his family to engage legal counsel for him, is not a demonstration of any diligence on his part. It is such generalized reason that could be cited by all and sundry.
10. The application was not also filed timeously.
11. In the upshot, the application herein is dismissed.
12. This decision does not however preclude the applicant from seeking relief from the Court of Appeal.
13. Orders accordingly
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024. F. GIKONYO M.JUDGEIn the presence of:-1. Court Assistant – Otoro2. Applicant– Present3. M/s Rakama for DPP - Present