Kamau v Republic (Criminal Application E017 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1078 (KLR) (3 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1078 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION E017 OF 2026 JM MATIVO, JA JUNE 3, 2026 BETWEEN JOHN KARIUKI KAMAU ...................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT (Being an application for extension of time to appeal against the whole decision of the High Court of Kenya at Naivasha (Nzioka, J.) dated 3rd May 2023 in CRA No. E018 of 2021) RULING 1. John Kariuki Kamau (the applicant) has moved this Court by his application dated 30th March 2026 seeking extension of time to appeal to this Court against the judgment rendered by Nzioka, J. on 3rd May 2023 in Naivasha HCCR Appeal No. E018 of 2021. The applicant was convicted by the Magistrates Court at Naivasha in CMCCR Case No. 29 of 2020 for the ofience of defilement contrary to section 8 (1) as read with section 8 (2) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to serve life imprisonment. His appeal to the High Court in Naivasha being HCCRA No. 018 of 2021 was dismissed on 3rd May 2023 by Nzioka, J. 2. The applicant states that his failure to lodge his notice of appeal was occasioned by the fact that he is in prison and he only relies on third parties to follow up his appeal. It is that his appeal has high chances of success. 3. The respondent’s counsel Mr. Omutelema, Senior Assistant Director of Public prosecutions has amiably conceded to the application in his written submissions dated 12th May 2026. 4. I have considered the application and the applicant’s supporting affidavit. The applicant has invoked this Court’s discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 to enlarge the time for him to https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1078/eng@2026-06-03 1
page 1 of 2
file his appeal in this Court. In the case of Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR, the Supreme Court stated as follows: “ 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 flow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.” 5. I note that the applicant is in prison and he is serving life sentence. I am persuaded by the reasons he has ofiered for the delay which is, his incarceration and the fact that he has to rely on third parties to initiate his appeal. These are genuine constraints. Accordingly, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in his favour. 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 45 days from today. Orders accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026. J. MATIVO ................................ 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/2026/1078/eng@2026-06-03 2
page 2 of 2