Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment

Shikanga v Republic (Criminal Application E044 of 2025) [2026] KECA 240 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
11 February 2026
LKL. Kimaru
330 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to excuse a ten-year appeal delay, saying judgments are freely available online on Kenya Law Reports.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu delivered by L. Kimaru, JA, on an application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for extension of time to file a second appeal. The applicant, Collins Shikanga, had been convicted by the trial Magistrate's court of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to life imprisonment. His first appeal to the High Court at Kakamega was dismissed. He then sought leave to appeal out of time, attributing the delay to the late availing of the High Court judgment, and asserted that his intended appeal had high chances of success. The respondent did not oppose the application. The Court confirmed that its jurisdiction under Rule 4 is discretionary, but rejected the applicant's explanation: the first appeal had been decided nearly ten years earlier, and judgments of the superior courts are published on the Kenya Law Reports website free of charge, so the claimed unavailability of the judgment did not excuse the delay. The Court held the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that the application lacked merit notwithstanding the respondent's non-opposition. The application was dismissed in its entirety. No costs order was recorded. No authorities were cited and the judgment contains no separate opinions.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant had given a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the intended appeal
  2. 2.Whether the application for extension of time to appeal out of time should be granted

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant's explanation for the delay justified extension of time

Holding

The application was dismissed because the delay of nearly ten years was inordinate and the explanation was unconvincing, notwithstanding the respondent's non-opposition

Reasoning

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. It noted that judgments and rulings of superior courts are published on the Kenya Law Reports website free of charge, so the applicant's claim that he lacked the High Court judgment in time did not excuse the delay. The respondent's lack of opposition could not save an otherwise meritless application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction to extend time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is discretionary, and an applicant must give a reasonable and excusable explanation for the delay; delay caused by failure to obtain a judgment that is publicly available on the Kenya Law Reports website is not a sufficient explanation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for extension of time to appeal out of time is dismissed

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

LK
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (jurisdiction to extend time)

Relief refused

#

Extension of time to file an appeal out of time against the High Court judgment

The delay was inordinate and inexcusable; the explanation that the High Court judgment was not availed was rejected because superior court judgments are published free on the Kenya Law Reports website

p. 1

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.

This Court is not convinced by the reason given by the applicant for delay in filing the appeal in time. The period of delay is inordinate. It is inexcusable.
p. 1Inordinate and inexcusable delay
Although the respondent did not object to the application, this Court formed the view that the application lacks merit.
p. 2Non-opposition by respondent does not compel grant of extension of time
It is hereby dismissed.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal of the application

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the case number, neutral citation, or the date and details of the High Court decision appealed from, and the date of judgment is printed as 2026, which appears anomalous

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shikanga v Republic (Criminal Application E044 of 2025) [2026] KECA 240 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/240/eng@2026-02-11

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.