[2025] KECA 426 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's delay of approximately four years in filing the appeal was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The applicant failed to provide any evidence of attempts to file the appeal or obtain the necessary proceedings during the period of delay. The court held that the explanation...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 426 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dennis Kipkoech; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E212 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MA Warsame
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Criminal Appeals, Delay in Filing, Discretion of Court
- 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
Dennis Kipkoech
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's delay of approximately four years in filing the appeal was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The applicant failed to provide any evidence of attempts to file the appeal or obtain the necessary proceedings during the period of delay. The court held that the explanation offered was an afterthought and did not meet the threshold required for the exercise of its discretion to extend time. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file an appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Kipkoech v Republic (Criminal Application E212 of 2024) [2025] KECA 426 (KLR) (28 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 426 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Criminal Application E212 of 2024
MA Warsame, JA
February 28, 2025
Between
Dennis Kipkoech
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(An application for extension of time to file an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court at Nakuru (Mulwa, J.) dated 18th July, 2020 in HCCRA No. 70 OF 2016 Criminal Case 70 of 2016 )
Ruling
1. The applicant, Dennis Kipkoech has filed a notice of motion dated 24th October 2024 seeking leave to appeal out of time against the judgment issued in HCCRA No. 70 of 2016, on 18th July, 2020 where he was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to 30 years.
2. Although aggrieved, the applicant failed to lodge his notice of appeal within the statutory stipulated time of fourteen (14) days. His present application invokes Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to enlarge the time to file his appeal.
3. The applicant’s case as stated on the face of the application and his supporting affidavit dated 2nd October 2024, is that the delay was occasioned by the failure to be supplied with the High Court’s Judgment on time. He seeks to appeal the judgment on the grounds that; his defence was not considered, that the elements of the offence were not proved and that the sentence was harsh and unlawful.
4. I have considered the application, the supporting affidavit, the and the grounds of appeal stated. It is evident that there has been a delay of approximately 4 years in filing the appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The applicant’s position is that the delay was occasioned by delay in furnishing him with the judgment of the High Court.
5. The Supreme Court of Kenya pronounced itself in the question of extension of time in the case of Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v. Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR, and stated as follows:“The law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay. All it states is that any delay should be satisfactorily explained. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.”
6. The delay in this matter is long and inordinate. The applicant has not presented any proof before this court that he attempted even a single attempt to file his appeal or procure the requisite proceedings in the four long years ensuing the judgment of the High Court. In my view the proffered reason is an afterthought and I accordingly dismiss the application.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. M. WARSAME…………………………JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR