[2012] KEHC 4336 (KLR)
The court found that although there was no evidence the applicant applied for proceedings immediately after the ruling, the record showed that the proceedings were lengthy and took time to type and proofread. The trial itself was conducted speedily, and the delay in obtaining proceedings was not inordinate given the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4336 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kaindi Letikirish & 11 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application 5 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Extension of Time, Criminal Appeals, 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
Republic
Applicant
Kaindi Letikirish & 11 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate or excusable.
- 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if leave is granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was no evidence the applicant applied for proceedings immediately after the ruling, the record showed that the proceedings were lengthy and took time to type and proofread. The trial itself was conducted speedily, and the delay in obtaining proceedings was not inordinate given the circumstances. The court was satisfied that the applicant had an arguable appeal and that no prejudice would be suffered by the respondents if leave was granted. In the interest of justice, the applicant was granted leave to file the appeal out of time, with a specific period set for lodging and serving the appeal.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to lodge the appeal out of time.
- The appeal must be lodged and served within 10 days of this ruling, failing which the leave granted will lapse automatically.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\"; mso-style-parent:\"\"; font-size:11. 0pt;\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\"; mso-fareast-\"Times New Roman\"; mso-bidi-\"Times New Roman\";} </style> <![endif]
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPLICATION 5 OF 2012
REPUBLIC……………………………………….……APPLICANT
VERSUS
KAINDI LETIKRISH & 11 OTHERS……….….RESPONDENTS
RULING
Before me is the Notice of Motion dated 24/1/2012 in which the Republic seeks to be granted leave to lodge an appeal out of time against the ruling of Hon. B.S. Khapoya, DM II, in Maralal SPMCRC 263/2011, dated 21/7/2011. The 2nd prayer is that the court do set a period within which the appeal should be lodged. The application is premised on grounds found on the face of the application and the affidavit sworn by Nerolyne Idagwa Miraho, a state counsel attached to the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Nakuru and who has conduct of this matter.
The twelve (12) respondents were charged in the SRMCRC 263/2011, with five counts of assault contrary to Section 251 of the Penal Code. After hearing the prosecution case, the court acquitted the 12 respondents of all the charges under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants are dissatisfied with the ruling and wish to appeal against the said decision. The applicant contends that they applied for proceedings but the same were supplied after the statutory period allowed for appeal had lapsed; that the proceedings were supplied to them on 11/1/2012. It is the applicant’s contention that the intended appeal has overwhelming chances of success and that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate, it is also the applicant’s contention that the respondents will not suffer any prejudice.
The application was opposed, Geoffrey Letikirish, the 8th respondent deponed that he has authority of the other respondents to swear the replying affidavit. He deponed that proceedings in Maralal CRC 263/2011 commenced on 11/4/2011 and were concluded on 21/7/2011. The applicant was represented and there is no evidence that the applicant applied for proceedings; that no explanation has been given for the period between July 2011 and 24/1/2012 when this application was filed; that a period of 6 months is inordinate delay and in any case, the intended appeal has no chance of success.
Section 349of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a party who wishes to appeal against a conviction 14 days to do so. However if for good cause one cannot be able to file an appeal for want of the proceedings or judgment, within the stipulated period, the court may extend the said period if an application is made within a reasonable time.
I have perused the file and the application and I find no evidence that the applicant ever applied for the proceedings of the lower court after the ruling was read. However, there is indeed an appeal which was filed on 24/1/2012. The proceedings before the trial court commenced on 11/4/2011 and were concluded on 21/7/2011 when the ruling was read. That was a period of about 3 months. The hearing was conducted speedily. The prosecution called a total of 11 witnesses. The proceedings of the lower court are quite lengthy and must have taken quite a while to type and proofread.
I have perused the record, the evidence adduced before the court, the ruling of the trial court and the grounds of appeal and I am of the view that the respondent has an arguable appeal. Having found that the respondent’s trial was speedily conducted and the proceedings then took about 5 months to type, proofread and for this application to be made, I am satisfied that there has been no inordinate delay. There is no evidence that the respondents will suffer any prejudice nor has any been alluded to. It is in the interest of justice that the applicant be allowed to exercise its right of appeal. For the above reasons, I grant the applicant leave to lodge their appeal out of the stipulated time. The appeal be lodged and served within 10 days hereof, in default, the leave granted will lapse automatically. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED this 25th day of May, 2012.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
PRESENT:
Mr. Omari for the applicant
Mr. Ombati holding brief for Mr. Mugambi for the respondents
Kennedy – Court Clerk