Makori v Republic (Criminal Application E027 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1184 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1184 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION E027 OF 2026 AI HASSAN, JA JUNE 19, 2026 BETWEEN JULIUS NYAMARI MAKORI ................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT (An application for extension of time to appeal the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Prof. Joel Ngugi, J.) delivered on 12th March, 2020 in HCCR.A NO. 50 OF 2017) RULING 1. The applicant Julius Nyamari Makori seeks an extension of time to lodge an appeal out of time against a decision of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru in Criminal Case No. 50 of 2017, which convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 2. The application is dated 5th May 2026 and is supported by an affidavit of even date, which bears the applicant’s fingerprint but contains no clear indication that it was duly commissioned. In that affidavit, the applicant avers that following sentencing, his relatives had assured him that they would secure legal representation to pursue the appeal, but failed to do so, thereby occasioning the delay in lodging the appeal within the statutory period. He further states that it has only recently come to his attention that no appeal was lodged and no Advocate instructed to take up the matter. 3. The Supreme Court in Salat vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others (Application 16 of 2014) [2014] crystallised the principles governing extension of time as follows: i. Extension of time is not a right of a party, but an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court; ii. The party who seeks extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the Court; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1184/eng@2026-06-19 1
page 1 of 2
iii. Whether the Court should exercise the discretion to extend time is a consideration to be made on a case-by-case basis; iv. Where there is a reasonable cause for the delay, the same should be expressed to the satisfaction of the Court; v. Whether there will be any prejudice sufiered by the respondents if extension is granted; vi. Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; vii. In certain cases public interest should be a consideration for extending time. 4. The delay in lodging the instant application is approximately six years, a period that is manifestly inordinate. The applicant explains that the delay was occasioned by the failure of his relatives to retain counsel as they had promised, leaving him without representation to pursue the appeal. I am mindful of the formidable constraints under which an incarcerated prisoner without legal representation must operate in seeking legal redress. The applicant, who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment, ought not to be shut out from the appellate process merely on account of those impediments. In the circumstances, and noting that there is nothing on record from the Director of Public Prosecutions in opposition to the application, I find it just to exercise my discretion in his favour so as to enable him to pursue his right of appeal. 5. Ultimately, I allow the application and direct the applicant to file a notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of this ruling. The prison authorities should extend to the applicant such assistance as will ensure the notice is filed and lodged at the registry of this Court within the time I have stipulated. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. AHMED ISSACK .……..…………… 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/2026/1184/eng@2026-06-19 2
page 2 of 2