[2012] KEHC 2281 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not appealed to the Court of Appeal, meaning his appeal had not been dismissed by the highest court as required by Article 50(6)(a). Additionally, the applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of any new and compelling evidence as required by Article 50(6)(b). The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2281 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: EO A; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case 156 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Petition for Retrial Under Article 50(6) of the Constitution
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Retrial Petitions, New and Compelling Evidence, Right to Fair Trial, Language of Proceedings
- 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
EO A
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Petition for Retrial Under Article 50(6) of the Constitution
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.
- 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair trial due to language barriers or lack of witness statements.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not appealed to the Court of Appeal, meaning his appeal had not been dismissed by the highest court as required by Article 50(6)(a). Additionally, the applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of any new and compelling evidence as required by Article 50(6)(b). The court also reviewed the trial record and found that the proceedings were conducted in both English and Dholuo, the applicant's preferred language, and that the applicant did not raise the issue of language during his appeal. Therefore, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for a retrial under Article 50(6) of the Constitution.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition for retrial is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
Miscellaneous Civil Case 156 of 2011
EO A ............................................................... APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC ................................................ RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is a petition for retrial filed under Article 50 (6) (b) of the Constitution. The petitioner E O A, was first charged with the offence of incest contrary to section 20(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2006. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Judgment was delivered on 18th March, 2010. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the applicant appealed to the high court against both conviction and sentence. His petition of appeal which was filed on 29th March, 2010 was heard by Makhandia J. on 23rd November, 2010. It was subsequently dismissed. The court however found that the subordinate court had imposed the wrong sentence considering that the complainant was aged 11 years. The court therefore corrected the sentence to life imprisonment. Judgment was delivered on 17th January, 2011.
The applicant has now petitioned this court for a retrial. In his home made petition filed on 28th December, 2011 he states that he was not furnished with witness statements at the trial and that the proceedings were conducted in a language he did not understand. He further states that provisions of Article 50 (2) (g) was not explained to him, while Article 50 (2) P was not complied with by the court.
The application came before me on 23rd May, 2012. During the hearing the petitioner submitted that the court used a language he did not understand and that he was not supplied with witness statements.
The respondent through learned state counsel, Mr. Mutai, opposed the petition. He submitted that the petitioner had not met the two conditions provided under Article 50 (6). He asked that the petition be dismissed.
The issue before me for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to a retrial. Article 50 (6) provides that:
“A person who is convicted of a criminal offence may petition the High Court for a new trial if:-
a.The person’s appeal, if any has been dismissed by the highest court to which the person is entitled to appeal or the person did not appeal within the time allowed for appeal; and
b.New and compelling evidence became available.
The petitioner stated before court that he has not appealed to the Court of Appeal. This means that his appeal has not been dismissed by the highest court. Further the appellant has not demonstrated to this court any new and/or compelling evidence which has become available. He has only complained that he did not understand the language used in the trial court.
I have perused the record of the trial court. The translation is indicated as English and Dholuo. In the instant proceedings the petitioner indicated to this court that his preferred language was Dholuo. The same is indicated on the record. It cannot therefore be true that the petitioner did not understand the language used in the lower court. Besides, the petitioner did not raise the issue of language in his appeal at the superior court. I therefore find that allegation to be untrue.
In sum, I find that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for a retrial under Article 50 (6). The petition is dismissed.
Ruling dated, signedand delivered at Kisii this 25th day of September, 2012.
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Elijah Ochieng Anangwa:applicant (present/absent)
.................................... for respondent (present/absent)
.................................... court clerk
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE