https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1225

Njagi v Republic (Criminal Application E034 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1225 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1225 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru Criminal Application E034 of 2026 JM Mativo, JA July 1, 2026 Between Wilson Njiru Njagi Applicant and Republic Respondent (Being an application for extension of time to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (R. Ngetich, J.) dated 29th September 2021in Criminal Case No. 37 of 2015 Criminal Case 37 of 2015 ) Ruling 1.The application before me is dated 12th May 2026. The main prayer is for extension of time to appeal out of time against the judgment rendered by Ngetich J on 29th September 2021 in HCCR Case number 37 of 2015. 2.The respondent filed submissions dated 30th June 2026 conceding to the application. 3.I have considered the application and the grounds urged in support of the application. This Court has repeatedly ruled that an applicant seeking extension of time to file an appeal must offer a plausible, cogent and bona fide explanation rather than a vague or fanciful excuse. While dealing with an application for extension of time in criminal matters, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic one. However, proof of a sufficient plausible explanation is a mandatory prerequisite because justice cannot be subverted by condoning delays where the applicant shows sheer negligence or a total absence of a believable timeline. (See the Supreme Court of India decision in StateofNagalandvs.LipokAOandOthers [2005] 3 SCC 752). 4.In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, a foundational ruling on how courts must interpret "sufficient cause," the Supreme Court of India stated that "every day’s delay must be explained" does not mean a pedantic, minute-by-minute account is required. Instead, the court requires a plausible explanation that establishes the appellant acted with bona fide intentions and was not intentionally sleeping on his/her rights. 5.In criminal appeals involving incarcerated individuals, the courts generally show greater flexibility but a plausible ground is still mandatory. When a person is behind bars, administrative bottlenecks in prison, lack of legal aid, or delay in obtaining certified copies of the judgment constitute a plausible and acceptable explanation to grant an extension. The explanation tendered by the applicant satisfies the threshold laid down in the above cited decisions. The upshot is that the applicant’s application is merited. Accordingly, I allow it and grant the applicant leave to file his notice of appeal within the next 14 days and the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal within 45 days from today. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026.J. MATIVO...................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR.