Kipngetich v Republic (Criminal Application E175 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1728 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let a convicted man appeal six years late, ruling that blaming the court without evidence cannot excuse such a long delay.
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 should be granted leave to file his appeal out of time, having regard to the length of and reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent
Key legal issues
#Whether a delay of almost six years in filing a notice of appeal should be excused on the ground that the court's judgment was not supplied
The application was dismissed; the delay was inordinate, the explanation blaming the court was unsubstantiated, and there was no evidence of any intention to appeal
Applying the Leo Sila Mutiso v Helen Wangari criteria, the court found a delay of almost six years following the High Court judgment of 12th August 2018. The assertion that the delay was caused by the court not supplying its judgment was unsupported by any evidence. No indication existed that the applicant intended to appeal, and the appeal was characterised as an afterthought, warranting refusal of the discretionary relief.
Legal principles established
#- In an extension-of-time application the court considers: 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.
Court orders
#- 1.The application to enlarge time within which to appeal is dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Criminal Case No. 70 of 2019 at Bomet (appeal against conviction and sentence)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal to enlarge time for filing an appeal (extension of time application)
Relief refused
#Enlargement of time to lodge an appeal against the High Court judgment dismissing his appeal
The delay of almost six years was inordinate and unexplained; the claim that the court failed to supply its judgment was unsubstantiated and there was no indication of an intention to appeal
Costs
No costs order recorded in the judgment
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.
In my view this delay is inordinate and the explanation that the delay was occasioned by the Court is unsubstantiated. There is no indication whatsoever that the applicant intended to appeal. The appeal is simply an afterthought.
Consequently, I decline to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant and dismiss the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the High Court 'rendered its judgment on 12th August 2018' although the applicant was convicted in Criminal Case No. 70 of 2019, a date inconsistency on the face of the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kipngetich v Republic (Criminal Application E175 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1728 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Criminal Application dated 23rd August 2024 (arising from Criminal Case No. 70 of 2019 at Bomet). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1728/eng@2024-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.