WK v Republic (Criminal Application E060 of 2024) [2024] KECA 996 (KLR) (26 July 2024) (Ruling)

WK v Republic (Criminal Application E060 of 2024) [2024] KECA 996 (KLR) (26 July 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KECA 996 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION E060 OF 2024 MA WARSAME, JA JULY 26, 2024 BETWEEN WK .............................................................................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................  RESPONDENT (An application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal, against the judgment of the High Court at Nakuru (Joel Ngugi J.) dated 7th August, 2018 in HCCRA No. 180 OF 2014) RULING 1. The applicant, (WK) was convicted of incest contrary to section 20(1) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to life imprisonment in Criminal Case 817 of 2012 at Nakuru. The High Court, Ngugi J (as he then was) upheld the decision of the trial court in a judgment dated 7th August 2019. 2. The applicant now wishes to appeal that decision out of time and has led an undated application to that eect. The main reason for the delay of about three years and eight months is that he relied on his relatives who promised to hire a lawyer to represent him but could not do so due to nancial constraints. 3. The intended appeal is against conviction and sentence as stated in the notice of motion dated 18th April 2023. The grounds of appeal as stated in the Memorandum of Appeal are that the Learned Judge erred by: a. Failing to nd that the ingredients to the oence were not conclusively proved b. Failing to appreciate that there was no medical evidence linking the applicant to the commission of the oence https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/996/eng@2024-07-26 1 c. Failing to nd that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof to the required standard 4. In determining the matter, I am guided by the dicta in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v 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.” 5. I nd that the reason for the delay given by the applicant plausible. Furthermore, the grounds of appeal raise questions of law proper for determination by this Court. Accordingly, I nd that the applicant has satised the criteria for grant of leave to extend time. I direct that the Notice of appeal be led within 14 days. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024. M.WARSAME ………………………… 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/2024/996/eng@2024-07-26 2