Mukabali v Republic (Criminal Application E013 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1655 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal struck out a convict's application for extension of time because he already had a pending appeal on the same conviction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant's explanation for the delay in lodging the notice of appeal in time was reasonable
- 2.Whether the application constituted an abuse of the Court's process given the existence of an earlier pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Abuse of court process by a duplicative application
The application was struck out because the applicant had already lodged an appeal, registered as Criminal Appeal No. E029 of 2021, which was pending before the Court, making the present application unnecessary and abusive.
The applicant sought to appeal against his conviction and 25-year sentence for murder delivered by the High Court at Bungoma on 30th September 2020. He attributed the delay to an earlier appeal not being acknowledged. On inquiry, the Registry confirmed an appeal filed on 27th January 2021 was already pending under the First In First Out policy. Filing a further application in those circumstances was an abuse of process warranting summary striking out.
Legal principles established
#- A party who already has a pending appeal on the same matter cannot file a further application relating to that appeal without abusing the Court's process; such duplicative applications will be struck out.
Court orders
#- 1.The application was struck out as an abuse of the Court's process
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over a conviction and sentence for murder under sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code; application for extension of time to lodge notice of appeal under the Court of Appeal's procedural rules
Relief refused
#Leave/extension of time to lodge the notice of appeal out of time
The application was an abuse of process because the applicant already had a pending appeal (Criminal Appeal No. E029 of 2021) awaiting hearing under the Court's First In First Out policy
Costs
No costs order was made in the ruling
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This application has therefore been filed in abuse of the Court’s process. It is hereby struck out.
The appeal is registered as Criminal Appeal No. E029 of 2021. It is still pending hearing and determination by this Court on account of this Court’s First In First Out policy.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records the applicant's intended appeal to this Court, but the document appears to be a single-judge ruling on an interlocutory application rather than a full appellate judgment; no decision on the substantive appeal is recorded.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mukabali v Republic (Criminal Application E013 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1655 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal No. E029 of 2021 (application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1655/eng@2025-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.