IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT ELDORET (CORAM: L.M. NDOLO, JA (IN CHAMBERS) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO E033 OF 2026 BETWEEN GEOFFREY MOHA KEYA..................................APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC..................................................RESPONDENT (Application for extension of time for filing an appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kitale delivered in HCCRA No 104 of 2013) ******************** RULING 1. This ruling determines the appellant’s notice of motion dated 27th July 2026, by which he seeks extension of time to file an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court at Kitale delivered in HCCRA No 104 of 2013. 2. The motion is supported by the applicant’s own affidavit and is based on the grounds that; having been convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, and being sentenced to life imprisonment, the appellant appealed to the High Court but his appeal was dismissed. The applicant claims that he sent a notice of appeal to the High Court within the stipulated time but he did not Page 1 of 3
page 1 of 6
receive any response. Page 2 of 3
page 2 of 6
3. In his written submissions dated 7th September 2026, the applicant claims to have initiated his appeal by transmitting a notice of appeal to the High Court registry, within the required statutory period but he received no response, feedback or progress update. 4. In urging his plea for extension of time, the applicant relied on the decision in Leo Sila Mutiso vs Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1999] EA 231, where the factors to be taken into account were established as; the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the degree of prejudice to the respondent, and the chance of the appeal succeeding. 5. The applicant further cited the Supreme Court decision in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR where it was held that: “The law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay. All it states is that any delay should be satisfactorily explained. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.” 6. The respondent is opposed to the application. In its submissions dated 3rd September 2026, the respondent relies on the holding in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs Paul Kipkorir Kibet (supra). The respondent points out that the applicant did not disclose the date his appeal to the High Court was dismissed, making it difficult for this Court to exercise its discretion. Further, the respondent Page 3 of 3
page 3 of 6
states that the applicant’s transmitted a notice of Page 4 of 3 claim that he had
page 4 of 6
appeal to the High Court registry was not supported by any evidence as the alleged notice has not been availed to this Court. 7. It is true that the applicant did not disclose the date when his appeal was dismissed by the High Court. I therefore took the liberty to search for the High Court judgment in the Kenya Law Website. The search reveals that the judgment was rendered on 18th June 2015, meaning that the present application was filed more than eleven (11) years after delivery of the judgment the applicant seeks to appeal against. Moreover, although the applicant alludes to a notice of appeal allegedly sent to the High Court registry, he did not annex any such notice to his application. 8. Overall, I find and hold that the applicant has not explained the delay, which in my view, is inordinate. I therefore have no reason to exercise discretion in his favour. 9. The result is that the application dated 27 th July 2026 is dismissed. Dated and Delivered at Eldoret this 25th day of September, 2026. L.M. NDOLO …………………….…………… JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. Signed Page 5 of 3
page 5 of 6
DEPUTY REGISTRAR. Page 6 of 3
page 6 of 6