[2018] KESC 6 (KLR)

[2018] KESC 6 (KLR)

The Supreme Court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the principles governing the admission of additional evidence on appeal. The Court found that the issue of legal representation was not raised at the trial or first appellate court, and was only raised at the Court of Appeal, which addressed it within its jurisdiction. The right to legal representation at the State's expense is not absolute and must be established under the law. The Court further held that the application did not demonstrate that the additional evidence was unavailable with reasonable diligence at trial, nor that it was necessary for the just determination of the appeal. The issue of legal representation is a...

Citation
[2018] KESC 6 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Charles Maina Gitonga; Respondent: Republic
Court
Supreme Court
Court Station
Supreme Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 December 2018
Case Number
Petition 11 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Petition / Application for Leave to Adduce Additional Evidence in Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
MK Ibrahim, JB Ojwang, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu, I Lenaola
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Adducing Additional Evidence on Appeal, Legal Aid, Appellate Jurisdiction, Constitutional Rights in Criminal Trials
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Right to Counsel Adducing Additional Evidence on Appeal Legal Aid Appellate Jurisdiction Constitutional Rights in Criminal Trials

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Maina Gitonga

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition / Application for Leave to Adduce Additional Evidence in Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied the right to legal representation at trial and on first appeal, contrary to Article 50(2)(g) and (h) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the established principles for admission of additional evidence on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the principles governing the admission of additional evidence on appeal. The Court found that the issue of legal representation was not raised at the trial or first appellate court, and was only raised at the Court of Appeal, which addressed it within its jurisdiction. The right to legal representation at the State's expense is not absolute and must be established under the law. The Court further held that the application did not demonstrate that the additional evidence was unavailable with reasonable diligence at trial, nor that it was necessary for the just determination of the appeal. The issue of legal representation is a...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion Application dated 18th September 2017 and filed on 26th September 2017 is hereby dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of the application.