Gathano v Republic (Criminal Application E193 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1727 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused a prisoner's bid to appeal four years late, holding that lack of money does not excuse missing the 14-day notice deadline.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant's delay of about four years in seeking to appeal has been satisfactorily explained so as to warrant extension of time
Key legal issues
#Whether the approximately four-year delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time was satisfactorily explained
The delay was inordinate and unexplained; the reasons proffered (non-supply of the judgment and relatives' financial constraints) failed because a prisoner need not pay to lodge a notice of appeal within 14 days and the non-supply claim was unsubstantiated
The court applied the Chemaringo test that delay must be satisfactorily explained. It held that a sentenced person faces no costs in filing a notice of appeal, which must simply be given within 14 days, so lack of funds for legal representation does not excuse inaction. The claim that the High Court judgment was not supplied remained unsubstantiated. Discretion was therefore declined.
Legal principles established
#- There is no fixed minimum or maximum period of delay for extension of time; any delay must be satisfactorily explained, and a plausible and satisfactory explanation is the key to the exercise of the court's discretion
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretionary jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing an appeal (rule not named in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file an appeal out of time against conviction for defilement and the enhanced 30-year sentence
The delay of about four years was inordinate and unsatisfactorily explained; the claim that the judgment was not supplied was unsubstantiated and filing a notice of appeal as a sentenced prisoner carries no cost
Costs
No order as to costs - each party to bear their own costs (dismissed with no order as to costs)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay. All it states is that any delay should be satisfactorily explained. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay is the key that unlocks the court's fiow of discretionary favour.
there are no costs associated with filing a notice of appeal by a person who is serving a sentence. All that is required is to give notice of the intention to appeal within 14 days.
Consequently, I find the delay inordinate and decline to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant and dismiss the application with no order as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gathano v Republic (Criminal Application E193 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1727 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1727/eng@2024-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.