Wanjala v Republic (Criminal Application E014 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1656 (KLR) (15 October 2025) (Ruling)

Wanjala v Republic (Criminal Application E014 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1656 (KLR) (15 October 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 1656 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CRIMINAL APPLICATION E014 OF 2025 LK KIMARU, JA OCTOBER 15, 2025 BETWEEN FRED WANJALA .....................................................................................  APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................  RESPONDENT (Being an application for extension of time from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Bungoma (Ali Aroni, J) Dated 20th November,2016 in HCCRA No. 25 of 2013) RULING 1. Fred Wanjala, the applicant herein was convicted by the trial Magistrate’s court at Kimilili of the oence of delement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was sentenced to serve life imprisonment. His appeal to the High Court at Bungoma was unsuccessful. The applicant wishes to exercise his last appeal to this Court. 2. However, he did not lodge the notice of appeal in time. He has made an application to this Court to be granted leave to appeal out of time. He explains that his failure to lodge the notice of appeal in time was not of his making but due to the fact that, being incarcerated, he was not supplied with the certied typed copies of the proceedings and judgment in time to enable him lodge his second appeal to this Court. He was not in a position to follow up the typing of the proceedings by the Court’s Registry. The applicant urged that the Court should not put undue weight to the period of delay but on the fact that he should be given a chance to exercise his constitutional right of appeal. 3. The application is opposed. The respondent pointed out that there was inordinate delay between the time the High Court dismissed the applicant’s rst appeal and his application to this Court to be granted leave to appeal out of time. The period of delay referred to is nine (9) years. The respondent urged the Court to disallow the application. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1656/eng@2025-10-15 1 4. This Court has carefully considered the application and the rival submissions led. Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules grants this Court unfettered discretion to extend time for any steps to be taken in the appeal, notwithstanding the time limited by the Rules. Over time, this Court has come up with principles to guide it when determining such applications. It includes, inter alia, the length of delay, the reason for delay and whether the respondent will be prejudiced. 5. The applicant’s appeal before the High Court was dismissed on 20th November, 2016. The applicant led the present application on 26th February, 2025. There is a lapse of a period of more than Eight (8) years. The applicant explains the reason for the delay in mounting the appeal in time to the fact that he was not availed typed copies of the proceedings and Judgment of the impugned decision in time. This Court is not convinced by this explanation. In normal circumstances, this Court will not refuse a convict’s application to exercise his right of appeal. 6. In this application, the delay of more than eight (8) years is so inordinate that it was clearly a case of inexcusable indolence on the applicant’s part. This Court agrees with the respondent that the period of delay militates against this Court issuing the order craved for by the applicant for extension of time. 7. The application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. L. KIMARU .................................. JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of original Deputy Registrar. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1656/eng@2025-10-15 2