[2019] KEHC 10532 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to present any new and compelling evidence as required under Article 50(6) of the Constitution to justify a review of their sentence or a fresh trial. The applicants' sentences had already been commuted from death to life imprisonment, and the Mutuaetu decision on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 10532 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Koome Mugira; Applicant: Martin Mbae; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Case 54 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Resentencing and Constitutional Relief
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Mandatory Sentences, Right to Fair Trial, New and Compelling Evidence
- 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
David Koome Mugira
Applicant
Martin Mbae
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Resentencing and Constitutional Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established a breach of their constitutional rights warranting a fresh trial or resentencing.
- 2 Whether the applicants have presented new and compelling evidence as required under Article 50(6) of the Constitution to justify a review of their sentence.
- 3 Whether the decision in the Mutuaetu case on mandatory death sentences applies to the applicants' circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to present any new and compelling evidence as required under Article 50(6) of the Constitution to justify a review of their sentence or a fresh trial. The applicants' sentences had already been commuted from death to life imprisonment, and the Mutuaetu decision on the unconstitutionality of mandatory death sentences did not apply to their circumstances in the absence of new evidence. The court held that there was no legal or factual basis to grant the orders sought, and accordingly dismissed the application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for resentencing and declaration of breach of constitutional rights is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 54 OF 2015
DAVID KOOME MUGIRA...........................................APPLICANTS
MARTIN MBAE
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.....................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
David Koome Mugira and Martin Mbae vide summons dated 3rd December 2015 sought that the court declares that their constitutional rights had been breached and that their trial be started a fresh.
The death sentence passed upon them in Nkubu SRM’s court CR. C. No. 835 of 2006 was committed to life imprisonment after their appeals in H.C. CRA No. 95 of 2009 at Meru and Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2011 at Nyeri were dismissed for being devoid of merits.
It was their ground that evidence of PW3 was extracted from the proceedings and their defeating the interests justice. They also claimed that S. 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code was flouted.
They said they had new and compelling evidence to adduce before the court during the hearing of the application and that if orders sought are not granted their fundamental rights and freedoms will be violated and taken a way hence defeating the sense of Justice.
During the hearing on 22. 10. 2018 both applicants sought to be resentenced. The state through Mrs Mwathi submitted that the applicants didn’t tender any new evidence that meets the threshold for resentencing and/or application under Article 50(6) of the constitution.
This court finds that the application has not been based on any evidence at all and there is therefore no basis upon which orders sought can be granted. Applicants had been sentenced to suffer death as provided by the law. That sentence was committed to life imprisonment. The Mutuatetu case which I suspect they now rely upon to seek an order of resentencing dealth with mandatory nature of capital offences which was declared unconstitutional. Being that the applicants are now not facing death sentence and being that they have not given any evidence that would justify this. Court reviewing the sentence passed on them and committed, the application is dismissed.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 24TH DAY OFJANUARY 2019
In the presence of:
CA: KINOTI
Applicant: A1- PIP: A2 - PIP
Respondent: Ms Mwaniki for state
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE