[2025] KECA 847 (KLR)
The court found that the delay of approximately 15 years and 5 months in filing the appeal was inordinate. The applicant's explanation, namely the inability to procure the proceedings and judgment, was unsupported by any evidence of attempts to obtain the record. The court held that blaming the High Court for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 847 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Tirop Rotich; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E246 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- WK Korir
- Legal Topics
- Enlargement of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Robbery With Violence, Explanation of 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
Robert Tirop Rotich
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of over 15 years in filing the appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an enlargement of time to file an appeal out of time against the High Court judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay of approximately 15 years and 5 months in filing the appeal was inordinate. The applicant's explanation, namely the inability to procure the proceedings and judgment, was unsupported by any evidence of attempts to obtain the record. The court held that blaming the High Court for failure to supply the documents for over 15 years was unconvincing and unbelievable. As a result, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the court declined to exercise its discretion to enlarge time for filing the appeal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant's notice of motion dated 19th December 2024 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Rotich v Republic (Criminal Application E246 of 2024) [2025] KECA 847 (KLR) (9 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 847 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Criminal Application E246 of 2024
WK Korir, JA
May 9, 2025
Between
Robert Tirop Rotich
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an application for leave to file an appeal out of time against the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kericho (M. Ang’awa & Emukule, JJ.) dated 4th July 2009 in HCCRA No. 1079 of 2007)
Ruling
1. Robert Tirop Rotich’s appeal before the High Court against conviction and death sentence for robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code was dismissed on 4th July 2009. In the notice of motion dated 19th December 2024, he seeks an enlargement of time for filing an appeal on the ground that he could not secure a copy of the judgment and the typed proceedings in time. The application is supported by his affidavit, in which he avers that he has an arguable appeal that is likely to succeed and the State will suffer no prejudice if time is enlarged.
2. When the application came up for hearing, none of the parties had filed submissions. Be that as it may, the parameters for considering an application under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules are well settled. An applicant must declare the whole period of delay and sufficiently explain the delay. Additionally, as was appreciated by this Court (J. Mohammed, JA) in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs. Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR, even though there is no definitive maximum or minimum period of delay, it is only a satisfactory explanation that will unlock the doors shut by lapse of time.
3. The delay herein is approximately 15 years and 5 months. There is no doubt that the delay is inordinate. The reason advanced by the applicant for the inability to procure the proceedings and judgment is not supported by any evidence showing the attempts, if any, made to secure the record. Blaming the High Court for failure to supply proceedings and judgment for over 15 years, is in my view, unconvincing and unbelievable. In the circumstances, I therefore decline to exercise my discretion in the applicant’s favour. Consequently, the applicant’s notice of motion dated 19th December 2024 is dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY 2025. W. KORIR.....................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a True copy of the originalDEPUTY REGISTRAR