[2025] KEHC 8702 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8702 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant, the DPP, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 59-day delay in filing the appeal. The DPP, having been present at the delivery of the judgment and sentence and with access to the handwritten judgment, could have formulated and filed the petition of appeal without waiting for certified proceedings. The court emphasized that the discretion to extend time must be exercised judiciously and that the reasons advanced for the delay were inadequate. Furthermore, the respondent would suffer prejudice in terms of costs and the burden of defending an appeal that could have been filed earlier. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8702 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Mary Kirigo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 June 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E024 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
K Kimondo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Extension of Time, Sentencing Appeals, Discretion of Court
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Extension of Time Sentencing Appeals Discretion of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Mary Kirigo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent will suffer prejudice if leave to appeal out of time is granted.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of certified proceedings is a valid ground for delay in filing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, the DPP, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 59-day delay in filing the appeal. The DPP, having been present at the delivery of the judgment and sentence and with access to the handwritten judgment, could have formulated and filed the petition of appeal without waiting for certified proceedings. The court emphasized that the discretion to extend time must be exercised judiciously and that the reasons advanced for the delay were inadequate. Furthermore, the respondent would suffer prejudice in terms of costs and the burden of defending an appeal that could have been filed earlier. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated January 23, 2025 is dismissed.