[2015] KEHC 4775 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not presented any new and compelling evidence as required under Article 50(6) of the Constitution. The issues raised regarding witnesses, medical evidence, and exhibits were already within the applicant's knowledge at the time of trial and had been addressed in previous...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4775 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Moses Tokyo Mariga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal 35 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal / Application for Review/fresh Trial After Exhaustion of Appeals
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Fresh Evidence, Review of Conviction, Appeal Exhaustion
- 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
Moses Tokyo Mariga
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal / Application for Review/fresh Trial After Exhaustion of Appeals
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has presented new and compelling evidence to warrant a fresh trial under Article 50(6) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the issues raised by the applicant were already addressed in previous appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not presented any new and compelling evidence as required under Article 50(6) of the Constitution. The issues raised regarding witnesses, medical evidence, and exhibits were already within the applicant's knowledge at the time of trial and had been addressed in previous appeals. The court emphasized that it cannot reopen matters that have been conclusively determined by itself and the Court of Appeal, and that the threshold for a fresh trial had not been met. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review and a fresh trial is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MiSCELLANOUS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 2014
MOSES TOKYO MARIGA ….......................................................................ACCUSED
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …......................................................................................PROSECUTOR
J U D G M E N T
The application is brought by the applicant under the provision of Article 22 and 159 of the Constitution and by extension Article 50. The applicant apparently is asking the court to review the matter afresh and proceed to order for fresh trial.
The applicant had been charged with defilement. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. His appeal to the High Court as well as the Court of Appeal did not succeed. He has therefore filed the current application.
The substance of his application are founded on his oral evidence in which he has argued that one Mr. Mogaka did not testify yet he was a Key witness. He said that when he raised the issue the trial court advised him to bring him as his witness.
He further challenged the findings on the medical report. He equally challenged the fact that no DNA was done and the T-shirt was not produced as evidence.
The state opposed the application arguing that all the issues raised by the applicant had been addressed in all the appeal processes and nothing was therefore new. The matter at the lower court was adjourned at various instances with good and plausible grounds.
I have perused the proceedings herein especially the judgments of various courts. I respectfully do not find anything to suggest that the issues raised by the applicant are new and so compelling that it requires fresh consideration. The applicant has exhausted the appeal process. This court and the Court of Appeal has pronounced itself and therefore it cannot sit as an appellate court again.
Even more interesting is that the issues regarding the evidence adduced during trial especially the medical evidence and the witnesses called or left behind cannot be a basis for this court to deal with as it was within the applicant's knowledge and in any case ought to have been dealt with by the other courts earlier on.
The Supreme Court in TOM MARTINS KIBISU VRS REPUBLIC (2014) eKLR stated as follows:
“we are in agreement with the Court of Appeal that under Article 50(6), “new evidence” means “evidence which was not available at the trial “and compelling evidence” implies “evidence that would have been admissible at the trial, of high probative value capable of belief and which, if adduced at the trial would probably have led to a different verdict. A court considering whether evidence is new and compelling for a given case, must ascertain that it is, prima facie material to or capable of affecting or varying the subject charges, the criminal trial process, the conviction entered or the sentence passed against the accused person.”
I am therefore of the considered opinion that the application herein does not met the above criteria and the same is hereby dismissed.
DATED, DELIVERED THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2015
H. K. CHEMITEI
J U D G E