Gideon Kipkoech Korir v Republic

4. The present application is hinged upon rule 4 of this Court’s Rules. The Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Twaha vs. Abdalla & 2 others [2015] KESC 20 (KLR) held as follows regarding the exercise of discretion to extend time: “ As regards extension of time, this Court has already laid down certain guiding principles. In the Nick Salat case, it was thus held: “… it is clear that the discretion to extend time is indeed unfettered. It is incumbent upon the applicant to explain the reasons for delay in making the application for extension and whether there are any extenuating circumstances that can enable the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. … we derive the following as the underlying principles that a Court should consider in exercising such discretion: extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party, at the discretion of the Court; a party who seeks extension of time has the burden of laying a basis, to the satisfaction of the Court; whether the Court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case- to- case basis; where there is a reasonable [cause] for the delay, [the same should be expressed] to the satisfaction of the Court; whether there will be any prejudice sufiered by the respondents, if extension is granted; whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.” 5. I have considered the reason advanced by the applicant, the respondent’s submissions, and the law. I have also taken note that contrary to the applicant’s submission, the High Court upheld the sentence given by the trial court. The applicant explained the delay of eight years by stating that he was not furnished with the judgment in good time. 6. However, this Court cannot turn a blind eye on the fact that it has been a whooping eight years since the disputed judgment was delivered. In my view, the applicant ought to have advanced an explanation and extenuating circumstances to demonstrate the steps he took to alert the prison officers to obtain the judgment. The only reason in the supporting affidavit dated 31st July 2025 is as follows: “I was not able to file the appeal on time as I had not received a copy of the judgement.” 7. A considerable period has elapsed, and there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the applicant intended to pursue an appeal. While the Court is cognizant of the fact that the applicant is currently incarcerated, it remains his responsibility to provide an explanation for the eight-year delay in filing this application. Was he sick? Did he engage the prison authorities to help him get the proceedings and judgement and was not assisted? What changed now to enable him to file the application? While I am fully conscious that the applicant is in prison, the exercise of discretion must be based on a cogent explanation and it is not an exercise to be handled casually. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am not satisfied that the applicant is deserving of the exercise of this Cout’s discretion. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2025 lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. M. GACHOKA C.Arb, FCIARB. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1898/eng@2025-11-12 2

page 2 of 3

...................................... JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a True copy of the original Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1898/eng@2025-11-12 3

page 3 of 3