Felix Ojwang Balamu v Republic

d. Presentation of a forged certificate contrary to section 34(a) of the Kenya National examination council 3. The trial magistrate found the Applicant guilty of three(3) counts and acquitted him on count Two(2). He was thereafter fined Kshs. 8,600,000, failure to which he would serve a jail term of ten(10) years. 4. It is averred by the advocate for the applicant on record that he wrote a letter to the trial court seeking both a copy of the judgment and typed proceedings on 5th November, 2025 and filed a notice of appeal on the same date following the sentencing on 4th November, 2025. The certified copy of the judgment was obtained on the 18th November 2025, and the typed proceedings still remain unavailable. They seek the court to admit the appeal as filed. 5. The respondent opposed the application. It was submitted that the law is settled on what an applicant must establish for the court to exercise its discretion in the applicant’s favour. The court has the discretion to do so. The court will consider the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and the likelihood of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted (see Sila Munyao Mutiso vs Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1999] 2EA). It was further submitted that the Supreme Court has set out the principles to be considered in determining an application for extension of time, as follows. Extension of time is not a right of the party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court; a party who seeks an extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court; whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time is a matter to be decided on a case-by-case basis; whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay, the delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the court; whether there will be any prejudice sufiered by the respondents if the extension is granted; and whether the application has been brought without undue delay. 6. The application was canvassed through written submissions. The submissions reiterate and expound on what is stated in the afidavits. 7. Extension of time is a discretionary power grantable on well-settled principles. In Fakir Mohammed vs Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others [2005] eKLR, the Court reiterated such principles as the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, the degree of prejudice to the respondent, and the conduct of the parties. (See also Leo Sila Mutiso v Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1991] eKLR). 8. Applying these principles to the present application, the applicant has demonstrated the reason for the delay by writing to the Magistrate's court on 5th November 2025 to request a copy of the judgment and typed proceedings. This was after the judgment was delivered on 28th October, 2025. Unexplained delays are fatal. For instance, in Bi-Mach Engineers Ltd v James Kahoro Mwangi [2011] eKLR, an extension was refused where the delay lacked explanation. 9. The delay is explained by the applicant's failure to furnish the proceeding, which is excusable. In Dilpack Kenya Ltd v William Muthama Kitonyi [2021] eKLR, it was held that indolent litigants cannot use applications for extension of time to sanitise irregular appeals. But in this case, I find none. The application was filed within a reasonable time on 18th November 2025. The Supreme Court has afirmed that the law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay, provided it is satisfactorily explained by the applicant and is acceptable to this court. The grounds of appeal in the attached petition raise issues regarding the evidence adduced before the trial court, the conviction, and the sentence. 10. The application is merited. The Application dated 19th November, 2025 is hereby allowed as prayed. Costs shall be in the cause. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7536/eng@2026-06-02 2

page 2 of 3

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2026. R.E.OUGO JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Asembo for the Applicant Rsepondent Absent Adan C/A https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7536/eng@2026-06-02 3

page 3 of 3