Chengo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E156 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 4912 (KLR) (17 April 2026) (Ruling)
Applicant failed to name the alleged witness and disclose the nature of evidence, making it impossible for the court to determine if the evidence is new or compelling; thus, the conditions of Article 50(6) were not met.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 4912 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Baraka Kenga Chengo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 2026
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E156 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Retrial, New and Compelling Evidence, Article 50(6) Constitution
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Parties
Baraka Kenga Chengo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a retrial under Article 50(6) of the Constitution
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated the existence of new and compelling evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Applicant failed to name the alleged witness and disclose the nature of evidence, making it impossible for the court to determine if the evidence is new or compelling; thus, the conditions of Article 50(6) were not met.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- application dated 24.9.24 dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment