[2017] KEHC 1904 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner failed to disclose any new and compelling evidence that would warrant an order for retrial. Although the petitioner alleged a breach of his right to a fair trial and referenced the willingness of the complainant to provide further information, neither the petitioner nor the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1904 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Martin Mungathia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Petition 4 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Ruling
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Fair Trial Rights, Retrial Applications, New Evidence, Constitutional Rights, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Martin Mungathia
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner was denied the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the petitioner has disclosed new and compelling evidence to warrant an order for retrial.
- 3 Whether the court should exercise its powers to re-evaluate the subordinate court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner failed to disclose any new and compelling evidence that would warrant an order for retrial. Although the petitioner alleged a breach of his right to a fair trial and referenced the willingness of the complainant to provide further information, neither the petitioner nor the complainant presented such evidence before the court. The court held that the constitutional threshold for granting a retrial under Article 50(6)(b) was not met. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
MISC. CR. PETITION NO. 4 OF 2016
MARTIN MUNGATHIA...................APPLICANT
VS
REPUBLIC .................................RESPONDENT
RULING
Martin Mungathia the Petitioner herein filed this Petition on 20th April 2016 seeking that the court re-addresses his case vide Isiolo PM Court CR. C. No. 891 of 2009 on the grounds that:
1. My rights to fair trial were breached as envisaged in Section 25(c) of the Constitution.
2. During the trial of this case at the subordinate court, at the subordinate court, the prosecution’s case was flouted with a lot of doubts and inconsistencies.
3. This court re-evaluation the entire case as per powers bestowed on it.
4. That he be accorded fair justice to meet the needs of Justice.
5. Other further grounds to be adduced at the trial of the application thereof.
The Petitioner in his oral submissions in court send that it was his 1st time to appear in court during trial and he was not aware he could call for Occurrence Book. He said even the complainant was surprised when he was convicted and sentenced to death. He said the complainant was ready to write a letter and explain what happened.
Mrs Mwathi for state/Respondent opposed the Petition for reasons that Petitioner was accorded the right under Article 52 (a) of the Constitution during trial. Prosecuting Counsel submitted that Article 165(3) establishes the Supreme Court and has no relevance to the petition.
Regarding Article 50(6)(b) it was submitted that Petitioner had not disclosed any new evidence to warrant the court to order for a retrial and the petition should be dismissed.
The Petitioner said that when prosecution closed its case, he was made to defend himself but he was not given time to prepare his defence. He said the complainant was ready to come to court.
The issue for determination is whether Petitioner has satisfied the court that he warrants an order for a retrial.
It would have been expected that whatever evidence the Petitioner alleges to have been discovered is disclosed to the court for it to determine whether it was such evidence that could warrant the court to make an order for retrial.
Neither the Petitioner nor the complainant have laid that evidence before the court.
The Petition is therefore dismissed.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
2. 11. 2017
Before Adwera – Ong’injo Justice
Penina – C/A
Mrs Mwathi for state.
Petitioner- P/P
Court
Ruling Delivered Dated and Signed in court on 2nd November 2017.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE