Eric Imbugwa Salim v Republic

because it was during the COVID-19 period, every time he followed up for a court number, he was told to wait; 3. d. The applicant waited for an appeal number from 2021 to 2023, when it dawned on him that his appeal may not have been forwarded to court; e. In 2023, while incarcerated at Eldoret GK Prison, the appellant forwarded to the paralegal department, an application for leave to appeal out of time, but he did not get a case number nor a date in court, and each time he followed up, he was told to wait; f. Sometime in 2024, the applicant contacted his family members to procure counsel to represent him before this Court, but they informed him that they could not aord to pay the legal fees; g. On 15th July 2026, an advocate by the name Hamba Caroline, visited Eldoret GK Prison, where she met the applicant who presented his predicament to her, and she agreed to le the present application and represent him on pro-bono basis; h. The prison system and the applicant’s relatives on whom he relied, failed him, which were circumstances beyond his control. In his written submissions dated 20th August 2026, the applicant reiterates the reasons for the delay in ling his notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal, as set out on the face of the application and the supporting adavits. He relied on the decision in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR where the Supreme Court expounded on the parameters to be taken into account in an application for extension of time 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 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.” 4. The import of this decision is that while the period of delay is an important factor to consider, it is not the dening one as it must be considered alongside the reason advanced for the delay. Indeed, the law does not set any threshold in terms of the period of delay; each case must be considered on its own merit. 5. The respondent does not oppose the applicant’s plea for extension of time. It relied on this Court’s decision in Leo Sila Mutiso vs Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1999] EA 231 where it was held: “It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well settled that in general the matters which this Court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are rst, the length of the delay and secondly, the reason for the delay, thirdly (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted and fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.” . https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1890/eng@2026-09-25 2

page 2 of 3

6. The applicant has explained in great detail, not only the diculties he has encountered in trying to progress his appeal while serving time in prison, but also his eorts against these odds. I am satised that the delay of just over 5 years, was not occasioned by the applicant. 7. In the circumstances, I will exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. His notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal are admitted as duly led. 8. The Deputy Registrar, Eldoret High Court, who shall be served with a copy of this ruling, 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. 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/2026/1890/eng@2026-09-25 3

page 3 of 3