Robert Makori Samson v Republic

Court of Appeal of Kenya

29 September 2026

ASAsike-Makhandia

846 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a life-sentence prisoner more time to appeal because his delay in finding a lawyer was reasonably explained.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu on an application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 for extension of time to lodge and serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal. The applicant, Robert Makori Samson, was convicted of defilement by the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Keroka and sentenced to life imprisonment. His first appeal to the High Court at Nyamira (HCCRA No. E065 of 2024) was heard and dismissed in its entirety on 28 February 2025. He sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time, explaining the delay by his unsuccessful attempts, through relatives, to secure legal representation. The respondent, though it filed no replying affidavit, filed written submissions through the ODPP and expressly did not oppose the application, acknowledging that Rule 4 confers a wide and unfettered discretion and that no prejudice would be suffered. The court applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet that delay need only be satisfactorily explained, and Bowen LJ's dictum in Gardner v Jay that discretion must be exercised according to common sense and justice. Balancing the explanation tendered, the severity of the sentence, the respondent's concession and access-to-justice considerations, the court allowed the motion and directed that the Notice of Appeal be filed and served within 14 days and the Record of Appeal within 60 days. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

Exercise of discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Holding

The discretion is wide and unfettered; a plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is key, and the respondent's concession plus the life sentence and access-to-justice considerations favoured extension

Reasoning

The court adopted the Supreme Court's guidance in Chemaringo that delay need only be satisfactorily explained, and Bowen LJ's dictum that discretion must be exercised according to common sense and justice. It weighed the applicant's explanation (failed attempts to secure counsel through relatives), the life imprisonment sentence, the respondent's non-opposition, and access to justice, and found the discretion properly exercisable in the applicant's favour.

p. 2

Legal principles established

Extension of time under Rule 4 is a discretionary remedy; delay must be satisfactorily explained and each case considered on its peculiar circumstances in the interests of justice

Court orders

1.Notice of Motion dated 15th July, 2026 allowed
2.Applicant to file and serve Notice of Appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of the ruling
3.Applicant to thereafter lodge and serve the Record of Appeal within sixty (60) days

On appeal from: High Court of Kenya at Nyamira; HCCRA No. E065 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked: Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Robert Makori Samson v Republic", Case Analysis (2026). Criminal Application E050 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2093/eng@2026-09-29

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