[2020] KEHC 394 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 394 (KLR)

The High Court found that the petitioner had already raised the same issues regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty and the fairness of his trial before the Court of Appeal, which had rendered a final decision on those matters. The Court of Appeal expressly declined to refer the matter back to the High...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 394 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Walter Onyango Odino; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Petition 14 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Petition for Re Hearing of Sentence
Outcome
petition dismissed
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Death Penalty, Constitutional Rights, Fair Trial, Appeal Exhaustion
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Death Penalty Constitutional Rights Fair Trial Appeal Exhaustion

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Onyango Odino

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Petition / Ruling on Petition for Re Hearing of Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a re-hearing of his sentence after exhausting all appeals.
  2. 2 Whether the death penalty imposed was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised by the petitioner had already been determined by the Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the petitioner had already raised the same issues regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty and the fairness of his trial before the Court of Appeal, which had rendered a final decision on those matters. The Court of Appeal expressly declined to refer the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration of the sentence, finding no error or harshness in the sentence imposed. Consequently, the High Court held that it could not re-open or re-hear the sentence as it would amount to sitting on appeal over a matter already conclusively determined by the Court of Appeal. The petition was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and merit.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.