[2009] KEHC 129 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 129 (KLR)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal out of time was procedurally defective. The affidavit in support was deponed by the advocate rather than the applicants themselves, failed to disclose the original criminal case number, did not specify the offence or sentence, and did not provide sufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 129 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Willy Kipngetich Langat; Appellant: Joel Kipkemoi Ngetich; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal 13 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application struck out with leave to refile
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Criminal Appeals, Procedural Timelines, Affidavit Requirements
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Criminal Appeals Procedural Timelines Affidavit Requirements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willy Kipngetich Langat

Appellant

Joel Kipkemoi Ngetich

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause to be granted leave to appeal out of time under Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the application as filed meets the procedural requirements for such leave.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal out of time was procedurally defective. The affidavit in support was deponed by the advocate rather than the applicants themselves, failed to disclose the original criminal case number, did not specify the offence or sentence, and did not provide sufficient explanation for the delay of over a year. The court held that each applicant should file a separate application, supported by their own affidavit, detailing the reasons for delay and the good cause for granting leave. The absence of critical information and failure to comply with procedural requirements led to the application being struck out, with liberty to file fresh, properly...

Court Disposition

application struck out with leave to refile

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal out of time is struck out.
  • Applicants are granted leave to file fresh applications within fourteen (14) days containing all relevant information and affidavits deponed by the applicants themselves.