Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KECA 1716 (KLR)

Chegem v Republic (Criminal Application E021 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1716 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
15 October 2025
ASAsike-Makhandia
359 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a self-represented litigant 45 more days to appeal because the High Court delayed giving him his court documents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu on an application for extension of time. The applicant, Joseph Lesire Chegem, sought to appeal the decision of the High Court at Kisii dated 12th January 2024, which turned down his resentencing and/or revision application. The time for appealing under the Court of Appeal Rules had expired, so he moved the court for an extension. Although the notice of motion was undated and cited no rule, the judge treated it as an application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant explained that the delay arose because the High Court failed to supply him with the proceedings and judgment as requested; that explanation was not challenged by the respondent. The respondent, though served on 10th September 2025, filed no papers in opposition, and in written submissions filed by Mr. Joseph Kimanthi, learned Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, expressly supported the application, noting that the applicant was acting in person and not conversant with the law. The court accordingly allowed the application as prayed and gave the applicant forty-five (45) days from the date of the ruling to lodge his intended appeal. No costs order was made. The judgment does not disturb the High Court decision; it merely opens the door to a challenge. No authorities were cited and no separate opinion was written.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to appeal

Holding

The application was allowed because the applicant's explanation for the delay was uncontroverted and the respondent did not oppose the application

Reasoning

The applicant, acting in person, explained that he had not lodged an appeal in time because the High Court proceedings and judgment were not supplied to him when requested. That averment was not contested, and the respondent, through counsel, expressly supported the grant of the extension. The court treated the undated, unlabelled motion as one under Rule 4 and exercised its discretion in the applicant's favour.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for extension of time to appeal under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is decided in the court's discretion; unchallenged explanations for delay and the absence of opposition may justify the extension

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted to the applicant to appeal against the High Court decision of 12th January 2024
  2. 2.The applicant has forty-five (45) days from the date of the ruling to lodge his intended appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Kisii
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time to appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chegem v Republic (Criminal Application E021 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1716 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1716/eng@2025-10-15

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.