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

Makonge Wangwi Marwa v Republic

Court of Appeal of Kenya
11 February 2026
LKL. Kimaru
353 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 let a convicted man file his appeal late, ruling that delayed court records and Covid-19 disruptions were valid reasons for the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge Chamber application of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu decided under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant, Makonge Wangwi Marwa alias Wangwi Masseli, was convicted of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code and sentenced on 24th February 2020 to serve thirty-five years' imprisonment. He sought extension of time to lodge an appeal against both conviction and sentence. He explained the delay by the failure of the trial court to avail him typed and certified copies of the proceedings and judgment in time. The respondent did not oppose the application. The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Rule 4 and took judicial notice that the relevant period fell within the Covid-19 lockdown, when court services including typing of proceedings were significantly affected. Satisfied that the explanation was excusable and noting the respondent's non-opposition, the court found the application had merit, allowed it, granted the extension of time to file the appeal out of time, and directed that the notice of appeal be filed and served within fourteen days. No costs order was made. This was an interlocutory procedural ruling, not a determination of the intended appeal itself; no decision below was reviewed on the merits and no authorities were cited.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to appeal out of time

Holding

The application was allowed because the delay was satisfactorily explained: the applicant was not availed typed and certified proceedings in time, compounded by the Covid-19 lockdown, and the respondent did not oppose.

Reasoning

The applicant explained that the trial court failed to avail him certified typed copies of the proceedings and judgment. The court took judicial notice of the Covid-19 lockdown period during which court services, including typing of proceedings, were adversely affected. It found the reason excusable and noted the respondent's non-opposition, concluding the application had merit.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court's jurisdiction to extend time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is discretionary, and a satisfactory, excusable explanation for the delay, together with non-opposition by the respondent, justifies the extension.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is allowed
  2. 2.The applicant is granted extension of time to file the appeal out of time
  3. 3.The notice of appeal shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days of the date of the order
On appeal from
High Court (trial court inferred from record)
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Makonge Wangwi Marwa v Republic", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/241/eng@2026-02-11

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