Wanjala v Republic (Criminal Application E031 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1713 (KLR) (25 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1713 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT ELDORET CRIMINAL APPLICATION E031 OF 2026 L NDOLO, JA SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 BETWEEN JOSEPH WANJALA .................................................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT (Application to file an appeal out of time against the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kitale (H. K. Chemitei, J.) delivered on 20th September 2017 in HCCRA No 129 of 2012) RULING 1. By his notice of motion dated 24th July 2026, the applicant pursues extension of time to le an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Kitale delivered on 20th September 2017 in HCCRA No 129 of 2012. 2. The motion is supported by the appellant’s own adavit, by which he depones that he was convicted of the oence of delement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment and his appeal to the High Court at Kitale was dismissed on 20th September 2017. 3. In his written submissions dated 9th September 2026, the applicant states that upon his appeal being dismissed by the rst appellate court, he lodged a notice of appeal before that court but he did not receive any response. The applicant annexed a notice of appeal dated 21st September 2017 alongside a memorandum of appeal. He further states that he had relied on his relatives to procure legal counsel for him but they did not oblige. 4. On its part, the respondent opposes the application on account of the length of delay being eight (8) years, which it terms as inordinate. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1713/eng@2026-09-25 1
page 1 of 2
5. While the length of delay is an important factor to consider in an application for extension of time, it is not the dening one and must be considered alongside the reason advanced for the delay. 6. This position was armed by the Supreme Court in its decision in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR in the following terms: “ 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 the delay is the key that unlocks the court’s ow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.” 7. In this Court’s decision in Mukunza vs Republic [2026] KECA 293 (KLR) it was held that in exercising its discretion to extend time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court takes into account both the length of delay and the reason for the delay. 8. In this case, the applicant has demonstrated eorts made towards pursuing his appeal, by way of a notice of appeal and a memorandum of appeal led at the rst appellate court. He submits, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, that after lodging his notice of appeal, he did not receive any response from the rst appellate court. I therefore nd that the delay, though long, cannot be attributed to the applicant. 9. For this reason, I will exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and allow his application for extension of time to le his appeal. 10. The Deputy Registrar, Kitale High Court is directed to prepare and serve the record of appeal on the appellant and the respondent within the next 30 days from the date of this ruling. 11. I direct that a copy of this ruling be served upon the Deputy Registrar, Kitale High Court for compliance. DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. L.M. NDOLO …………………….…………… 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/2026/1713/eng@2026-09-25 2
page 2 of 2