https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1172

Mwangi v Republic (Criminal Application E030 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1172 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1172 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru Criminal Application E030 of 2026 AI Hassan, JA June 19, 2026 Between Nahashon Ndirangu Mwangi Applicant and Republic Respondent (Being an application for extension of time to appeal the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Ngetich, J.) delivered on 7th November 2021 in HCCRA NO. 66 OF 2018 Criminal Appeal 66 of 2018 ) Ruling 1.The applicant, Nahashon Ndirangu Mwangi, seeks an extension of time to allow him to lodge an appeal out of time against a decision of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2018, which upheld his conviction and sentence for the offence of defilement. 2.The application is undated and is supported by an affidavit dated 7th May 2026, which bears what could presumably be the applicant’s fingerprint but contains no clear indication that it was duly commissioned. In that affidavit, the applicant attributes the failure to lodge the appeal within the statutory period to his inability to secure the financial resources necessary to retain counsel and to the limited access to legal aid while in custody. 3.The applicant has filed submissions dated 12th May 2016. In those submissions, he candidly concedes that the delay in lodging the appeal is lengthy but maintains that it was neither deliberate nor calculated to obstruct the course of justice. He asserts that, upon the pronouncement of sentence by the High Court, he was incarcerated and thereby faced significant constraints in accessing legal advice and assistance necessary for the preparation of the appeal. The Director of Public Prosecutions, in its submissions dated 12th May 2026, acknowledges that the delay is inordinate but nonetheless indicates that it does not oppose the application. 4.The Supreme Court in Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others (Application 16 of 2014) [2014] crystallised the principles governing extension of time as follows:i.Extension of time being not a right of a party, but an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court;ii.The party who seeks extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the Court;iii.Whether the Court should exercise the discretion to extend time is a consideration to be made on a case-by-case basis;iv.Where there is a reasonable cause for the delay, the same should be expressed to the satisfaction of the Court;v.Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if extension is granted;vi.Whether the application has been brought without undue delay;vii.In certain other cases, public interest should be a consideration for extending time. 5.The length of delay in lodging the instant application is approximately four years. Evidently, the delay is inordinate. The applicant has explained that the delay is due to the fact that he is unrepresented and unable to be as effective as he would be if he were not incarcerated. I am cognizant of the constraints that an incarcerated prisoner without legal representation operates under in an effort to pursue legal redress. The applicant, presently serving a sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment, ought not to be shut out from the appellate process merely on account of those constraints. I exercise my discretion in order to allow him to pursue his right of appeal. 6.Ultimately, I allow the application and direct that the applicant do file a notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of this ruling. The prison authorities should extend to the applicant such assistance as will ensure the notice is filed and lodged at the registry of this Court within the time I have stipulated. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.AHMED ISSACK....................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a True copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR