[2025] KECA 383 (KLR)
The court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time for filing an appeal because the applicant failed to provide any reason for the delay of approximately four and a half months. The absence of an explanation for the delay was fatal to the application, as the court is required to consider the reason for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 383 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: More Ole Sarite; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application E111 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MA Warsame
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Sentencing and Resentencing, Robbery With Violence
- 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
More Ole Sarite
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time for filing an appeal because the applicant failed to provide any reason for the delay of approximately four and a half months. The absence of an explanation for the delay was fatal to the application, as the court is required to consider the reason for delay as a primary factor when determining whether to grant an extension of time. Without any justification, the court found no basis to allow the application, regardless of the merits of the intended appeal or other considerations.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file an appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Sarite v Republic (Criminal Application E111 of 2024) [2025] KECA 383 (KLR) (28 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 383 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Criminal Application E111 of 2024
MA Warsame, JA
February 28, 2025
Between
More Ole Sarite
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(An application for extension of time to file an appeal against the ruling of the High Court at Narok (Gikonyo, J.) dated 12th February, 2024 in HCCR Miscellaneous Criminal Application E001 of 2023 )
Ruling
1. The applicant, was arrested on 2nd September 2013 to answer a charge of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He was convicted on 8th day of August 2014 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Aggrieved, he appealed against the conviction and sentence.From the applicant’s affidavit, the High court ordered a retrial and the matter was sent back to the lower court on 6th November 2015. The matter was concluded on 4th August 2017 wherein the applicant was again found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
3. He appealed yet again and the case was remitted back to the High Court for resentencing on 1st March 2019. The applicant’s sentence was consequently reduced to 20 years.
4. Dissatisfied, the applicant filed the application subject of the intended appeal, seeking to have the time he spent in custody deducted from his 20 year sentence (i.e. from the date of his arrest on 2nd September 2013 to the date of his second conviction on 4th August 2017). Gikonyo, J. dismissed that application in a ruling dated 12th February 2024(Which the court is not privy to) and the applicant has filed the instant application seeking to file an appeal out of time against the impugned ruling.
5. The respondent is opposed to the application while the applicant has not filed any submission in support of his application.
6. This court has settled on the matters which should be taken into consideration when the court was called upon to exercise its discretion. Those matters, as was stated in the case of Leo Sila Mutiso vs Helen Wangari, (NRB) Civil Application No. 251 of 1997, include:“… first, the length of the delay; secondly, the reason for the delay; thirdly (possibly), the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted; and fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.”
7. I have perused the application and the affidavit in support of the application and not a single reason has been given for the delay of about four and a half months. I therefore decline to exercise my discretion and dismiss the application.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. M. WARSAME……………………….JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR