https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6798
The court found the applicant's explanation for the delay satisfactory despite the lengthy lapse of about nine months, and because the prosecution did not oppose the application, leave to appeal out of time was granted and the draft appeal deemed duly filed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 6798 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant/applicant: Simon Kamau Ngethe; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E062 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Ruling on Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- Application allowed
- Judges
- ["JM Nang'ea"]
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Conviction on Guilty Plea, Sentencing, Threatening to Kill, Appeal Filing Timelines
- 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
Simon Kamau Ngethe
Appellant/applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Ruling on Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Applicant had shown sufficient cause to be granted leave to file an appeal out of time
- 2 Whether the delay of about nine months should be excused
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the applicant's explanation for the delay satisfactory despite the lengthy lapse of about nine months, and because the prosecution did not oppose the application, leave to appeal out of time was granted and the draft appeal deemed duly filed.
Court Disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- Leave granted to file appeal out of time against the conviction and sentence in Nakuru Criminal Case No. MCCHSO E046/2023.
- The annexed draft Petition of Appeal is deemed as duly filed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**** **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **AT NAKURU** **CRIMINAL APPEAL NUMBER E062 OF 2025** **SIMON KAMAU NGETHE ………..…………….….……….. APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **REPUBLIC ……..………….……..………..…………...….. RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. By Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2025, the Applicant prays for orders as hereunder;- 2. **THAT this Honourable court be pleased to grant the Applicant leave to file an appeal out of time against the conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. Nakuru Criminal Case No. MCCHSO E046/2023 delivered on 16/06/2025.** 3. **THAT the annexed draft Petition of Appeal be deemed as duly filed.** 4. **THAT this Honourable Court do make such further and/or other orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances.** 5. The Application is supported by the Applicant’s affidavit purportedly sworn on 17th November 2025. In a nutshell, he explains delay to lodge the Appeal as attributable to his lack of representation by Legal Counsel during trial. As a result, he was ignorant of the period within which an Appeal ought to be lodged. The Applicant therefore *inter alia* states that delay to bring the Appeal was inadvertent and craves the court’s discretion to allow the application. 6. The Prosecution Counsel (Mr. Wakasyaka) does not oppose the Application. 7. The impugned decision was rendered on 13/2/2025. The Applicant was convicted of the offence of **threatening to kill Contrary to Section 223(1) of the Penal Code** and sentenced to eight (8) years in prison upon his plea of “guilty”. The particulars of the offence state that on 22nd February 2025 at Mlima Village, Mau Summot Location, in Kuresoi North Sub-County at Nakuru County, without lawful excuse, the Applicant uttered these words *to wit;* “*Shetani wewe nitakuuwa leo na nikukatekate kwa vipande”*, threatening to kill Dominic Ngethe while armed with a panga. 8. The sentence was meted out on 13/2/2025 and so the Application is brought about 9 months thereafter. This is a long delay but I am satisfied by the explanation therefore. Noting that the Prosecution Counsel does not also object, the Application is allowed as per prayers 1 and 2 and the Appeal herein is consequently deemed as duly filed. 9. Ruling accordingly. **J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.** **Ruling delivered virtually this 14th day of May, 2026.** **In the presence of:** **Mr Wakasyaka for the DPP.** **The Applicant.** **The Court Assistant (Jeniffer).** **J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.**