[2013] KEHC 5662 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 5662 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of new and compelling evidence as required by Article 50(6) of the Constitution. The purported new evidence, namely a witness who could testify that the complainant knew the applicant before the offence, was deemed irrelevant since the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 5662 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Kimanthi Muthunga alias Wanugu; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 July 2013
Case Number
Criminal Case 16 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for New Trial After Conviction and Exhaustion of Appeals
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
New Trial, Fresh Evidence, Post Conviction Review, Identification Evidence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law New Trial Fresh Evidence Post Conviction Review Identification Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Kimanthi Muthunga alias Wanugu

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for New Trial After Conviction and Exhaustion of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has presented new and compelling evidence as required under Article 50(6) of the Constitution to warrant a new trial.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim regarding a witness who could testify about prior knowledge by the complainant constitutes new and compelling evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of new and compelling evidence as required by Article 50(6) of the Constitution. The purported new evidence, namely a witness who could testify that the complainant knew the applicant before the offence, was deemed irrelevant since the complainants did not identify the applicant at trial and identification was made by another witness. The issue of identification had already been considered and upheld by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Therefore, the application for a new trial was dismissed as the threshold for reopening the case was not met.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for a new trial is dismissed.