Kerich v Republic (Criminal Application E092 of 2025) [2026] KECA 222 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a life-sentenced prisoner to file an appeal three years late because his delay had a satisfactory explanation.
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 has satisfied the principles for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal out of the statutory fourteen-day period
Key legal issues
#Whether concession by the State dispenses with the applicant's duty to satisfy the extension-of-time principles
No - even where the application is conceded, the applicant must still satisfy the established principles for extension of time.
The court acknowledged the State's concession but held that the applicant's entitlement to the discretionary relief depends on the Chemaringo principles, principally a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court then independently assessed the applicant's explanation for the three-year delay and the life sentence before granting leave.
Whether the reasons advanced for the three-year delay justified extension of time
Yes - the reasons for failure to lodge the appeal on time were accepted, and the life sentence made it just and fair to allow a second appeal.
The court found the explanation of non-receipt of the High Court judgment and failure of relatives to instruct counsel satisfactory. It weighed the applicant's right of a second appeal given the severity of a life imprisonment sentence and exercised its unfettered discretion under Rule 4 in his favour, with defined timelines.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is discretionary; there is no minimum or maximum period of delay, but any delay must be satisfactorily explained before the discretion is exercised in the applicant's favour.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 19th November 2025 is allowed
- 2.The applicant to file his notice of appeal within the next 14 days
- 3.The applicant to file the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal within 60 days
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- HCCRA No. 27 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time jurisdiction)
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.
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 delay is the key that unlocks the court's fiow of discretionary favour.
Although the application is conceded, the applicant must still satisfy the principles that have been laid down in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs. Paul Kipkorir Kibet [supra].
In the premises, the application dated 19th November 2025 is allowed. I direct the applicant to file his notice of appeal within the next 14 days and the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal within 60 days from today.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kerich v Republic (Criminal Application E092 of 2025) [2026] KECA 222 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Criminal Application dated 19th November 2025 (in HCCRA No. 27 of 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/222/eng@2026-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.