[2016] KEHC 4716 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 4716 (KLR)

The court found that while the applicant satisfied the first limb of Article 50(6)(a) by demonstrating that he had exhausted all appeals up to the Court of Appeal, he failed to satisfy the second limb under Article 50(6)(b) as he did not demonstrate the existence of new and compelling evidence. The court further...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 4716 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Malcom Odhiambo Owino; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 27 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for New Trial Under Article 50(6) of the Constitution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Review of Conviction, New and Compelling Evidence, Jurisdiction of High Court, Application of Article 50 6, Retrospective Application of Constitution
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Review of Conviction New and Compelling Evidence Jurisdiction of High Court Application of Article 50 6 Retrospective Application of Constitution

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcom Odhiambo Owino

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for New Trial Under Article 50(6) of the Constitution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the threshold under Article 50(6)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 to warrant a new trial.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence presented by the applicant constitutes new and compelling evidence as required by the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether Article 50(6) of the Constitution applies retrospectively to convictions before the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant satisfied the first limb of Article 50(6)(a) by demonstrating that he had exhausted all appeals up to the Court of Appeal, he failed to satisfy the second limb under Article 50(6)(b) as he did not demonstrate the existence of new and compelling evidence. The court further held that Article 50(6) does not apply retrospectively to convictions that occurred before the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution. The matters raised by the applicant were grounds of appeal already determined by the appellate courts, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revisit those issues. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 2.2.2016 is dismissed for lack of merit.