Korir v Republic (Criminal Application E043 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1995 (KLR) (30 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1995 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION E043 OF 2026 JM MATIVO, JA SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 BETWEEN COSMAS KIPNGENO KORIR .............................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT (Being an application against the conviction and sentence from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kericho (Karanja, J.) dated 29th August 2025 in CRA No. E017 of 2023) RULING 1. Cosmas Kipngeno Korir was charged, tried and convicted for the oence of delement contrary to Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to life imprisonment in Kericho CMCCR Case No.E008 of 2023. His appeal at the High Court at Kericho being HCCR Appeal No. E017 OF 2023 was unsuccessful. The applicant failed to lodge the notice of appeal within the prescribed period of 14 days. Vide his application dated 15th June 2026, he seeks extension of time to mount his appeal. He claims he could not appeal in time because he relied on relatives to instruct a lawyer but they could not do so owing to nancial constraints. 2. The respondent led submissions dated 27th August 2026 conceding to the application upon considering the lengthy sentence (life imprisonment) imposed upon the applicant. 3. Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 vests this Court with a wide discretion to enlarge the time prescribed by the Rules, or by any decision of the Court or of a Superior Court for the performance of any act permitted or required thereunder. The discretion may be exercised upon such terms as the Court may deem just. (See Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Koriri vs. IEBC and 7 Others [2015] eKLR). 4. I have duly considered the reasons proered by the applicant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1995/eng@2026-09-30 1
page 1 of 2
Even though the application is unopposed, the applicant is nonetheless required to satisfy the established principles governing the exercise of the Court’s discretion. (See Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. IEBC and 7 Others [2015] eKLR) [supra]. The overarching criterion for granting leave to appeal out of time is whether it is in the interests of justice to do so. The Court conducts a balanced evaluation of several specic factors. However, the "interests of justice" is not a freestanding excuse to overlook deadlines, but rather a legal framework for a balancing exercise. The interests of justice mandate that the Court weighs multiple factors against one another rather than focusing on a single issue. 5. The Court will not look at the applicant’s delay in isolation. Under the banner of the interests of justice, the Court performs a holistic evaluation of the length of the delay, the reasonableness of the explanation, the prospects of success and the prejudice to both the State and the applicant. 6. In criminal matters, the interests of justice are heavily weighted by constitutional considerations, specically, the right to a fair trial and the right not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily. If a strict application of procedural deadlines would result in an obviously innocent person remaining in prison, the interests of justice will heavily favor granting the extension. 7. Conversely, the interests of justice also demand that criminal matters reach nality. The State and the public have an interest in knowing that a criminal judgment is settled. Therefore, a completely unexplained or agrant delay will conict with the interests of justice, prompting the Court to deny the extension. In the interests of justice, strong prospects of success can compensate for a poor explanation for delay, and conversely, a minor delay can be forgiven even if the merits are modest. The "interests of justice" ensures that the rules of Court remain exible instruments to achieve true substantial justice, rather than rigid technical hurdles that create unfair outcomes. 8. I have looked at the reasons oered for the delay and weighed the interests of justice as discussed above. I am persuaded that this is a proper case for this Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Consequently, the application dated 15th June 2026 is hereby allowed. The applicant shall lodge the notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date hereof and shall thereafter le the record of appeal within forty-ve (45) days. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 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/2026/1995/eng@2026-09-30 2
page 2 of 2