[2025] KECA 1177 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's delay of approximately four months in filing the notice of appeal was not inordinate and that the explanation provided—reliance on his family to instruct an advocate, which did not occur—was plausible and satisfactory. Applying the principles from Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 1177 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Collins Maina Njoroge; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E057 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Extension of time granted.
- Judges
- JM Mativo
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Criminal Appeals, Conviction and Sentence, Procedural Delay
- 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
Collins Maina Njoroge
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal.
- 2 Whether the delay of approximately four months is inordinate and warrants denial of extension of time.
- 3 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 months in filing the notice of appeal was not inordinate and that the explanation provided—reliance on his family to instruct an advocate, which did not occur—was plausible and satisfactory. Applying the principles from Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs. Paul Kipkorir Kibet, the court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, particularly considering that he was acting in person and the nature of the sentence he was serving. The court therefore granted the extension of time, directing the applicant to file the notice of appeal within 14 days and the memorandum and record of appeal within 45 days.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Extension of time granted.
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 the record of appeal within 45 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Njoroge v Republic (Criminal Application E057 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1177 (KLR) (1 July 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 1177 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Criminal Application E057 of 2025
JM Mativo, JA
July 1, 2025
Between
Collins Maina Njoroge
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(An application for extension of time to file an appeal, against the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (H.I Ong’udi, J.) dated 18th December, 2024 in CRA No. 19 of 2018)
Ruling
1. By an application dated 12th June 2025, Collins Maina Njoroge (the applicant) seeks extension of time to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal against conviction and sentence by the High Court in Nakuru High Court Criminal Case No. 19 of 2018.
2. The applicant was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the penal code. The particulars being that on 25th February 2018 at Kampi Ya Moto junction in Rongai sub-county within Nakuru County, jointly with others not before Court, he murdered Joel Mbuthia Kamau. He was convicted and sentenced to serve 9 years imprisonment on 18th December 2024.
3. Despite being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he failed to lodge his notice of appeal within the statutory stipulated time of 14 days. He contends that he had agreed with his family to instruct an advocate on his behalf for the purpose of instituting the appeal, but to his dismay, he later learnt that his family never instructed an advocate on his behalf.
4. The respondent has not complied with the directions issued by the Deputy Registrar on 26th June 2025. Therefore, the instant application is not opposed.
5. I have considered the application, and the supporting affidavit sworn on 12th June 2025. It is evident that there has been a delay of approximately 4 months in filing his appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court of Kenya pronounced itself on the question of extension of time in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs. Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR 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. I have considered the reasons provided for the delay and the period of delay. I find that the delay is not inordinate and also, the reason offered is plausible. It is the plausible explanation of the delay that triggers this Court’s discretion. Applying the principles stated in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs. Paul Kipkorir Kibet (supra), and considering that the applicant is acting in person, and the period of sentence he is serving, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in his favour. I 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 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025. J. MATIVO............................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.Signed.DEPUTY REGISTRAR.