[2024] KECA 1376 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any credible or substantiated reason for the seven-year delay in seeking to file a notice of appeal. No grounds of appeal or draft memorandum were presented, and the claim of inability to pay fees was vague and unsubstantiated. Applying the principles from Leo...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KECA 1376 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geoffrey Kipkemoi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E072 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MA Warsame
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Defilement Offence, Sentencing, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Geoffrey Kipkemoi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the seven-year delay in filing the notice of appeal.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the notice of appeal in a criminal matter involving a life sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any credible or substantiated reason for the seven-year delay in seeking to file a notice of appeal. No grounds of appeal or draft memorandum were presented, and the claim of inability to pay fees was vague and unsubstantiated. Applying the principles from Leo Sila Mutiso v Helen Wangari, the court held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and that it could not exercise its discretion capriciously or without proper justification. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Kipkemoi v Republic (Criminal Application E072 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1376 (KLR) (8 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECA 1376 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Criminal Application E072 of 2024
MA Warsame, JA
October 8, 2024
Between
Geoffrey Kipkemoi
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(An application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal, against the judgment of the High Court at Kericho (Muya, J.) dated 28th March, 2017 in HCCRA No. 36 OF 2015)
Ruling
1. The applicant, (Geoffrey Kipkemoi) was convicted of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to life imprisonment in Criminal Case 59 of 2014 at Kericho. The High Court, (Muya J.) upheld the decision of the trial court in a judgment dated 28th March 2017.
2. The grounds as stated on the face of the application and supported by the supporting affidavit sworn by the applicant are that his appeal has high chances of success and that he is a pauper and not able to raise the required fee.
3. The respondent in its submissions dated 11th September 2024 contend that even though the delay is inordinate and unexplained, they do not oppose the application since the sentence is lengthy.
4. This court has settled on the matters which should be taken into consideration when the court was called upon to exercise its discretion. Those matters, as was stated in the case of Leo Sila Mutiso vs Helen Wangari, (NRB) Civil Application No. 251 of 1997, include:“… first, the length of the delay; secondly, the reason for the delay; thirdly (possibly), the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted; and fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.”
5. I have perused the application and the affidavit in support of the application and not a single reason has been given for the delay of about 7years. Again, no grounds of appeal or draft memorandum of appeal have been mentioned to show the success of the intended appeal and the applicant’s inability to raise the required fee is unsubstantiated and vague.
6. Consequently, no tangible reason has been offered for the delay of seven years, which I find inordinate. This court cannot act capriciously or on whims. I therefore decline to exercise my discretion and dismiss the application with no order as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024. M.WARSAME…………………………. JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR