[2025] KECA 379 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reason for the delay of about three years in seeking to file the appeal out of time. The absence of a tangible explanation for the inordinate delay meant that the court could not exercise its discretion in the applicant's favour. The court emphasized that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 379 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Richard Kipyegon Langat; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E218 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, Appeals Process, Murder Conviction, 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
Richard Kipyegon Langat
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reason for the delay of about three years in seeking to file the appeal out of time. The absence of a tangible explanation for the inordinate delay meant that the court could not exercise its discretion in the applicant's favour. The court emphasized that discretion must be exercised based on established principles and not arbitrarily. As a result, 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
21 paragraphs
Langat v Republic (Criminal Application E218 of 2024) [2025] KECA 379 (KLR) (28 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 379 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Criminal Application E218 of 2024
MA Warsame, JA
February 28, 2025
Between
Richard Kipyegon Langat
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(An application for extension of time to file an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court at Nakuru (Ongeri, J.) in HCCRA No. 28 OF 2013)
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted of the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code in High Court Criminal Case No. 38 of 2018 in a judgment dated 5th November 2021. He was sentenced to death and the sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment.
2. Aggrieved, the applicant now wishes to appeal the High Court’s decision and seeks leave to appeal out of time vide a notice of motion dated 24th October 2024 where he contends that the sentence was harsh and excessive, that learned judged failed to consider his defence and that his identification was inconclusive and was not proved as required by law.
3. The respondent through written submissions contended that it did not oppose the application given that the sentence meted out was lengthy and this was his first appeal.
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 3 years. Consequently, no tangible reason has been offered for the delay which is inordinate. This court cannot act on its own whims in granting the orders sought. I therefore decline to exercise my discretion and dismiss the application.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025M.WARSAME......................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR