Koech v Republic (Criminal Application E242 of 2024) [2025] KECA 846 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to revive a six-year-old murder appeal because the applicant could not explain why he waited so long.
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 an enlargement of time to file an appeal against his conviction and sentence for murder
- 2.Whether the delay of approximately 6 years and 4 months was inordinate and satisfactorily explained
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant's delay of approximately 6 years and 4 months in filing his appeal was excusable
The delay was inordinate and unexplained; the applicant's assertion that he was not supplied with the judgment and proceedings was not plausible absent evidence of steps taken to obtain them.
The court accepted the established principles from Leo Sila Mutiso (length of delay, reason for delay, chances of success, prejudice) and Chemaringo (no fixed maximum delay, but delay must be satisfactorily explained). While the applicant was serving a lengthy sentence and the intended appeal was a first appeal, he did not demonstrate any steps taken to follow up on the proceedings, making it unbelievable that he simply waited six years without action. The discretion was therefore not exercised in his favour.
Legal principles established
#- There is no minimum or maximum set period of delay in law; any delay in an application for enlargement of time must be satisfactorily explained, and only such an explanation unlocks the door shut by lapse of time.
- An applicant for enlargement of time must declare and explain the period of delay, and cannot merely blame the trial court for late supply of proceedings without demonstrating the steps taken to follow them up.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time to file an 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
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (enlargement of time to file an appeal)
Relief refused
#Enlargement of time to file an appeal against conviction and sentence
The delay of approximately 6 years and 4 months was inordinate and unexplained; the applicant blamed the trial court without demonstrating the steps he took to follow up on the proceedings
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 therefore find the delay not only inordinate but unexplained. It was incumbent upon the applicant to explain the delay in bringing the instant application but he has failed to do so.
there is no minimum or maximum set period of delay in law, but that any delay should be satisfactorily explained as it is only such an explanation that then unlocks the door shut due to lapse of time
Consequently, I decline to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. His application for extension of time to file an appeal is therefore dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The citationTreatment entry for Chemaringo records 'followed' but the decision also treats the applicant's reliance on it as unavailing on the facts; the principle was adopted but the application dismissed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koech v Republic (Criminal Application E242 of 2024) [2025] KECA 846 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Application (Extension of Time) — Notice of Motion dated 16th August 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/846/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.