Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Sharon Nthoki Mwanza v Republic

Mwanza v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E135 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 2708 (KLR) (17 February 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 2708 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIAMBU CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E135 OF 2024 DO CHEPKWONY, J FEBRUARY 17, 2025 BETWEEN SHARON NTHOKI MWANZA ............................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The matter is for mention for parties to take directions on the Notice of Motion filed on 30th October, 2024, in which the Applicant is seeking for orders that:a. The court allows the Applicant to file an appeal out of time. b. Spent. c. The costs of the application be waived since the Applicant is in legal custody and without financial means. 2. The application is premised on the grounds set out in the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the Applicant. 3. The application is not opposed by the Respondent. This being the case, the Notice of Motion application filed on 30th October, 2024 is hereby allowed in the following terms:a. The Applicant is hereby granted leave to file an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Nairobi out of time. b. The costs of the application be and are hereby waived. It is so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/2708/eng@2025-02-17 1

page 1 of 2

D. O. CHEPKWONY JUDGE In the presence of: Applicant in person –present M/S Ndeda counsel for Respondent Court Assistant - Martin https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/2708/eng@2025-02-17 2

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.