[2025] KECA 246 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicant, who is on death row, provided a plausible explanation for the delay in filing his notice of appeal, namely, that he was not supplied with the High Court judgment in time. The delay, though lengthy, was explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The respondent did not oppose the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 246 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis Maina Macharia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E226 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- Application allowed.
- Judges
- JM Mativo
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Robbery With Violence, 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
Francis Maina Macharia
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the notice of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the appeal under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant, who is on death row, provided a plausible explanation for the delay in filing his notice of appeal, namely, that he was not supplied with the High Court judgment in time. The delay, though lengthy, was explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The respondent did not oppose the application. Applying the principles governing extension of time, including the need for a reasonable explanation for delay and the absence of prejudice to the respondent, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant and granted leave to file the notice of appeal out of time.
Court Disposition
Application allowed.
Orders
- The applicant shall file his notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of this ruling.
- The applicant shall file the memorandum of appeal and record of appeal within 45 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Macharia v Republic (Criminal Application E226 of 2024) [2025] KECA 246 (KLR) (20 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 246 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Criminal Application E226 of 2024
JM Mativo, JA
February 20, 2025
Between
Francis Maina Macharia
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an application for leave to file an appeal out of time from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Naivasha (R. Mwongo, J.) dated 16th December, 2020 in CRA No. 38 of 2020)
Ruling
1. The application before the Court is dated 30th October, 2024. The main prayer is for leave to appeal out of time against the judgment issued in HCCRA No. 38 of 2019, on 16th December, 2020.
2. The applicant, Francis Maina Macharia jointly with others were arraigned before the Magistrate’s Court in Criminal Case No. 512 of 2017 at Naivasha and charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to Section 295 as read with Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. He was convicted of two counts of robbery with violence and sentenced to death.
3. The applicant’s appeal to the High Court against conviction and sentence was dismissed vide judgment delivered on 16th December 2020, but, although aggrieved he failed to lodge his notice of appeal within the statutory-stipulated time of 14 days. The applicant contends that he was not able to appeal on time because he was not supplied with the High Court’s Judgment to enable him to file his appeal on time. His present application invokes Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to enlarge the time to file his appeal.
4. The respondent has not complied with the directions issued by the Deputy Registrar on 24th December, 2024. Therefore, the instant application is not opposed.
5. I have considered the application, the undated supporting affidavit and the undated notice of appeal. It is evident that there has been a delay of approximately 3 years and 10 months in filing his appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
6. It is trite that this Court has unfettered discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 to extend time for the doing of any act under the rules. This discretionary power, however, is judicial in nature and must be confined to the rules of reason and justice. The Supreme Court in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. I.E.B.C. & 7 Others [2014] eKLR, stated:a.Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court;b.A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court;c.Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case to case basis;d.Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court;e.Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted;f.Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and,g.Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.
7. I have considered that the applicant is on death row. The reason in support of the application is plausible. I am inclined to exercise my discretion in his favour. I allow the application and direct the applicant to file his notice of appeal within the next 14 days and the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal within 45 days from today.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. J. MATIVO.........................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.Signed.DEPUTY REGISTRAR.