[2016] KEHC 6229 (KLR)
The court found that the issues raised by the applicant—excessive sentence, defective charge sheet, and improper police investigations—were not new and compelling evidence as required by Article 50(6) of the Constitution. These matters were within the applicant's knowledge during the trial and appeal and could have...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 6229 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Ogero Bosire; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 81 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Murder Conviction, New and Compelling Evidence, Post Conviction Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charles Ogero Bosire
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petition discloses new and compelling evidence as required under Article 50(6) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the issues raised by the applicant (excessive sentence, defective charge sheet, improper investigations) qualify as new and compelling evidence.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a retrial or other relief based on the grounds advanced.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issues raised by the applicant—excessive sentence, defective charge sheet, and improper police investigations—were not new and compelling evidence as required by Article 50(6) of the Constitution. These matters were within the applicant's knowledge during the trial and appeal and could have been raised at those stages. The court emphasized that for a petition under Article 50(6) to succeed, the evidence must be both new and compelling, meaning it was not available at the time of trial or appeal and is sufficiently weighty to potentially alter the outcome. Since the applicant's grounds did not meet this threshold, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
CRIMINAL MISC.APP.NO.81 OF 2015
CHARLES OGERO BOSIRE …...................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …..........................................................RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. The petition herein is premised under the provisions of Article 50(6) of the Constitution as read with Article 165 as well. The petitioner was charged and convicted on an Offence of Murder.
2. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 22/3/2012.
His petition raise three issues, namely:
a) the sentence was excessive;
b) the charge sheet was defective
c) the police did not carry out proper investigations.
3. During his submissions the petitioner essentially reiterated issues which he ought to have raised during trial. He for instance submitted that the court forced him to give an alibi defence and that his entire defence was ignored.
4. The learned state counsel opposed the petition arguing that there was nothing new and that all the issues he has raised ought to have been deliberated upon by both Superior Courts.
5. For such a petition to succeed there must be sufficient “new and compelling evidence” which was described by the Court of Appeal in TOM MARTINS KIBISU VRS REPUBLIC (2014) eKLR as:
“evidence that was not available at the time of the trial or could not have been availed upon exercise of due diligence and evidence sufficiently weighty that if it was available to the trial or the appellate courts the conviction would probably not have been sustained.”
6. The three issues raised by the petitioner herein cannot be termed to be new. The question of how the investigation was carried out by the police and whether the charge sheet was defective or not cannot be termed to be new. All the above issues and those submitted by the petitioner cannot be termed new and compelling evidence. They were within reach. He knew them during the substantive trial as well as on appeal. In any event the petitioner was represented by counsel on both trials.
7. Finally, the decision by the Court of Appeal came after the promulgation of the current constitution which establishes the Supreme Court. There was nothing to stop the petitioner from seeking redress from the Supreme Court.
8. Consequently, I do not find merit in the said petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered this 23/3/2016
H. K. CHEMITEI
J U D G E
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
….....................for state
….....................for applicant