[2004] KEHC 2383 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant received the lower court's proceedings in January 2004 but did not file the application until 16th April 2004, resulting in a delay of approximately three months. The applicant failed to provide any explanation for this delay. The court held that time for filing began upon receipt...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 2383 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Paul Langat
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Children Miscellaneous Application 163 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Timelines, Delay in Filing, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Paul Langat
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application was filed within the required time period after receipt of lower court proceedings.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the application was explained and justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant received the lower court's proceedings in January 2004 but did not file the application until 16th April 2004, resulting in a delay of approximately three months. The applicant failed to provide any explanation for this delay. The court held that time for filing began upon receipt of the proceedings and that the unexplained, inordinate delay was unjustified. The court concurred with the respondent's objection and dismissed the application on this basis.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
4 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII CRIMINAL MISC.APPLIC.NO.31 OF 2004 (From original conviction and sentence of the Resident Magistrate’s court at SOTIK in criminal case No.1145 of 2004) REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………………. APPLICANT VERSUS PAUL LANGAT ………………………………………………………… RESPONDENT RULING:
I have considered the application and the objection. The application has no merit. Applicant received lower court’s proceedings “sometimes in January 2004. ” However this application was filed on 16/4/04 – a whole 3 months later. There was no explanation why they took this long. Time started running on the day they received the proceedings. I find the delay was inordinate and not explained. I would concur with the respondent that this application may be due to the civil case, which was filed, by the respondent. It was filed and served before this application was brought.
In the circumstances the application is dismissed. KABURU BAUNI JUDGE 27/5/04
Mr. Anyona for Mrs. Asati for the respondent