[2023] KEHC 20778 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's failure to file an appeal within the statutory period was due to the registry's delay in providing typed proceedings, a factor outside the applicant's control. This constituted sufficient cause under section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 20778 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Amos Kimeli Lagat
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E060 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- Application allowed; leave to appeal out of time granted.
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Discretionary Powers, Access to Justice
- 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
Respondent
Amos Kimeli Lagat
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether delay in obtaining court proceedings constitutes good cause under section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's failure to file an appeal within the statutory period was due to the registry's delay in providing typed proceedings, a factor outside the applicant's control. This constituted sufficient cause under section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that the exercise of discretion to extend time should serve substantive justice and not penalize parties for delays not of their own making. Since the respondent did not challenge the applicant's explanation and there was no evidence of prejudice to the State, the court exercised its discretion in favor of the applicant and granted leave to appeal out of time.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; leave to appeal out of time granted.
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to file his appeal out of time.
- The Deputy Registrar of the High Court shall ensure that the typed proceedings of the Lower Court are prepared and issued to the applicant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Republic v Lagat (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E060 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 20778 (KLR) (24 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 20778 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E060 of 2023
RN Nyakundi, J
July 24, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Amos Kimeli Lagat
Applicant
Ruling
Coram:Before Hon. Justice R. NyakundiMr. Mugun for the State 1. The applicant has filed a notice of motion dated June 30, 2023 seeking the following substantive order: That the Applicant be granted leave to appeal out of time. In support of the application as deposed in the written statement has to do with the delay in being supplied with the court proceedings
2. Apparent from the record the applicant was charged of stealing stock contrary to 278 of the Penal Code in which he was convicted and sentenced to 4 (four) years imprisonment on September 6, 2022.
Determination 3. The limitation of time of Appeal in Criminal cases is provided for under section 349 of the CriminalProcedureCode which provides as follows:- An appeal shall be entered within fourteen days of the date of the order or sentence appealed against. Provided that the court to which the appeal is made may for good cause admit an appeal after the period of fourteen days has elapsed and shall so admit an appeal if it is satisfied that the failure to enter the appeal within that period has been caused by the inability of the appellant or his advocates to obtain a copy of the judgement or order appealed against and a copy of the record within a reasonable time of applying to the court therefore. In addition, Article 48 the Right on Access to Justice is guaranteed in our constitution. This includes the right of an appeal to higher court seeking a review for the orders issued by inferior court upon determination of the justiciable issues. The exercise of discretion donated to the court is unfettered save that it is to be considered within the scope and approach more pronounced and realm of Civil law. The guidelines in IvitavKyumbu (1984) Klr 441, And Communication Courier &anothervsTelecom (1999) eKLR are on point as to the applicable test: “ When the delay is prolonged and inexcusable, such that it would cause grave injustice to the one side or the other or to both, the court may in its discretion dismiss the action straight away. However, it should be understood that prolonged delay alone should not prevent the court from doing justice to all the parties. The plaintiff, the defendant and any other third or interested party in the suit, lest justice should be placed too far away from the parties.
4. Invariably, what should matter to the court is to serve substantive justice through judicious exercise of discretion which is to be guided by the following issues: 1) whether the delay has an abuse of the court: 3) whether the delay is inordinate and inexcusable: 4) whether the delay is one that gives rise to a substantial risk to fair trial in that it is not possible to have a fair trial of issues in action or causes or likely to cause serious prejudice to the Defendant: and 5) what prejudice will the dismissal cause to the plaintiff. By this test, the court is not assisting the indolent, but rather it is serving the interest of justice, substantive justice on behalf of all the parties.
5. Also in the case of Indar Singh Gill Ltd vs Njoroge Gichana HCCC No. 2411 of 1990 GS Pall J as he then was said “ In a discretionary matter like this the court should take into account all the circumstances including the merits of intended appeal.
6. In the instant application the applicant avers that he was not able to appeal within the time stipulated in the criminal procedure code due to the inordinate delay by the registry to issue him with typed court proceedings. That evidence has not been challenged and at this point having considered the record I find sufficient cause to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant for an extension of time to file his appeal outside the 14day period provided in section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this respect the Deputy Registrar of the High Court shall ensure that the typed proceedings of the Lower Court be prepared and issued to the Applicant within 30 days from today’s order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 2023………………………………………..R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE