Sarite v Republic (Criminal Application E111 of 2024) [2025] KECA 383 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a prisoner's late-appeal application because he gave no explanation for a four-and-a-half-month 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 has made out a case for extension of time to file an appeal out of time against the High Court ruling of 12th February 2024
Key legal issues
#Whether extension of time should be granted where no reason for the delay is given
The application was dismissed because the applicant gave no reason for the approximately four-and-a-half-month delay and filed no submissions.
The court applied the settled factors in Leo Sila Mutiso vs Helen Wangari: length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the intended appeal, and prejudice to the respondent. On perusal of the application and supporting affidavit, no reason at all was offered for the delay; the respondent opposed the application and the applicant filed no submissions. In the absence of any explanation for the delay, the judge declined to exercise the discretion in the applicant's favour and dismissed the application.
Legal principles established
#- In an application for extension of time, the court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time 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
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing an appeal (the specific rule invoked is not identified in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file an appeal against the High Court ruling dated 12th February 2024
No reason was advanced for the delay of about four and a half months
Costs
No costs order was made 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.
I have perused the application and the afidavit 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.
… 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.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties are not named anywhere in the judgment; the applicant is referred to only as 'The applicant' and the respondent only as 'the respondent'.
The case title, appeal number and neutral citation are absent from the certified copy of the judgment.
The impugned High Court ruling of 12th February 2024 was not before the court, which records it was 'not privy' to it.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sarite v Republic (Criminal Application E111 of 2024) [2025] KECA 383 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/383/eng@2025-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.