Skk v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a five-year-late appeal because the convicted man was never given his judgment and court proceedings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether inordinate delay is a bar where it is satisfactorily explained
Although five years is inordinate delay, the uncontroverted explanation that the applicant was not furnished with the judgment and proceedings justified the extension of time
The applicant filed his application five years after the impugned judgment. He explained that he had not been furnished with the proceedings and judgment despite attempts, and the respondent did not controvert that explanation. The court held that the delay, while inordinate, was explained, so the applicant ought to benefit from the Court's discretion under rule 4. The respondent also supported the application, citing the lengthy sentence, so no prejudice was asserted.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under rule 4 is discretionary and is exercised on principles established by the Supreme Court in Salat, with the explanation for the delay being central
Court orders
#- 1.Leave to appeal out of time granted; applicant to file notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of the order
- 2.Record of appeal to be filed and served within 30 days thereafter
- On appeal from
- High Court at Kabarnet
- HCCRA No. 36 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time jurisdiction); Article 50(2)(q) invoked by the applicant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Skk v Republic", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Application (undated as printed). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1913/eng@2025-11-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.