Kirakapel v Republic (Criminal Application E034 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1844 (KLR) (25 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1844 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT ELDORET CRIMINAL APPLICATION E034 OF 2026 L NDOLO, JA SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 BETWEEN SIMON KIPROP KIRAKAPEL .............................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT (Application to file an appeal out of time against the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kitale (Karanja, J.) delivered on 27th July 2014 in HCCRA No 41 of 2012) RULING 1. By his notice of motion dated 29th July 2026, the applicant seeks extension of time to le an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Kitale delivered on 27th July 2014 in HCCRA No 41 of 2012. 2. The motion is supported by the applicant’s own adavit, by which he depones that he was convicted of the oence of delement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment and his appeal to the High Court at Kitale was dismissed on 27th July 2014. 3. In his submissions in support of the application, the applicant states that he had not received feedback on his appeal, which he claims to have led on time. He adds that he has an appeal with high chances of success. The applicant did not however, produce any evidence to show that he had indeed led an appeal. 4. The respondent opposes the application by its submissions dated 3rd September 2026. In reference to the applicant’s averment that he had led an appeal, which was yet to be heard and determined, the respondent points out that the applicant had not provided details of the alleged appeal. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1844/eng@2026-09-25 1
page 1 of 2
5. The respondent points out that the applicant’s appeal before the High Court was dismissed 12 years ago in 2014. The respondent relied on this Court’s decision in Mukunza vs Republic [2026] KECA 293 (KLR) where it was held that in exercising its discretion to extend time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court must take into account the length of delay and the reason for the delay. 6. Both parties referred to 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 ow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.” . 7. The import of this decision, which is binding on this Court, is that an applicant seeking extension of time to le an appeal must explain the delay. In the present application, the applicant has made no eort to explain the 12-year delay, which is inordinate. I therefore have no basis upon which to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 8. The notice of motion dated 29th July 2026 therefore fails and 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 DEPUTY REGISTRAR. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1844/eng@2026-09-25 2
page 2 of 2