Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Otieno v Republic [2025] KEHC 10173 (KLR)
The High Court in Eldoret dismissed a criminal revision seeking sentence review, retrial, and a fresh trial under Article 50(6), finding no new and compelling evidence.
Otieno v Republic [2025] KEHC 10378 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of new and compelling evidence as required under Article 50(6) of the Constitution. The issues raised by the applicant, including alleged procedural improprieties and failure to consider time spent in remand custody, were either addressed during the trial and appeal or did not meet the high threshold for granting a new trial or revision. The court emphasized that newly discovered evidence must be of such probative value that it would likely result in a different verdict, and that the applicant's affidavit did not disclose a…
Source excerpt
Kabaiko v Republic [2025] KEHC 10167 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to present any new or compelling evidence that was not available at the time of trial or appeal. The sentence of life imprisonment for defilement was confirmed by both the trial and appellate courts, and there was no demonstration of error in principle, manifest excessiveness, or injustice in the sentence imposed. The court reiterated that the threshold for sentence review under Article 50(6) of the Constitution and sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires new and compelling evidence or a clear miscarriage of justice, neither of whi…
Source excerpt
Rotich v Republic [2025] KEHC 10172 (KLR)
The High Court at Eldoret dismissed a criminal revision application seeking sentence review, holding that the applicant had not shown new and compelling evidence under Article 50(6).
Lagat v Republic [2025] KEHC 9746 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to present any new and compelling evidence as required by Article 50(6) of the Constitution. The grounds raised by the applicant, including issues of age, identification, and penetration, were already considered and determined in previous proceedings and do not constitute new evidence. The court emphasized that for a new trial to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of evidence that was not available at trial and which, if presented, would likely have led to a different outcome. As the applicant did not meet this threshold, the appl…
Source excerpt
Etyang v Republic [2025] KEHC 8461 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for sentence review under Article 50(6) of the Constitution, as he did not present any new and compelling evidence that was unavailable at the time of trial and which would likely have changed the outcome. The court emphasized that judicial discretion in sentencing must be exercised within the confines of the law and relevant guidelines. Since the applicant's sentence had already been reviewed and reduced on appeal, and no new material evidence was presented, the application for further reduction was dismissed. The court reaffirm…
Source excerpt
Wanjala v Republic [2025] KEHC 7281 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for review of sentence under Article 50(6) of the Constitution and Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant did not present any new and compelling evidence that was unavailable at the time of trial or appeal, nor did he demonstrate that such evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence. The sentence had already been considered and upheld on appeal, and the application did not raise any constitutional or statutory error warranting intervention. The court further opined that motions for new trials based…
Source excerpt
Tallam v Republic [2025] KEHC 6877 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had exhausted her right of appeal, and the Court of Appeal had already considered and upheld the sentence after reviewing both mitigating and aggravating factors. The applicant's reliance on the time spent in custody and rehabilitation efforts did not amount to new and compelling evidence as required under Article 50(6)(b) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that, in the absence of such evidence, it lacked jurisdiction to grant a sentence rehearing. The jurisprudence in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic was acknowledged, but the court held…
Source excerpt
Tallam v Republic [2025] KEHC 5574 (KLR)
The court held that while the jurisprudence in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic rendered the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional and allowed for sentence rehearing in appropriate cases, such rehearing is only available where the applicant demonstrates new and compelling evidence as required by Article 50(6) of the Constitution. In this case, the applicant had already exhausted her appellate remedies, and the Court of Appeal had considered all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors before upholding the sentence. The applicant's reliance on the time spent in custody and…
Source excerpt
Rotich v Republic [2025] KEHC 5117 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had already been convicted and sentenced for robbery with violence, and his appeal and subsequent petition had been dismissed. The application for a non-custodial sentence was considered against the requirements of Article 50(6) of the Constitution and section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The court held that there was no new and compelling evidence presented to warrant a review of the sentence or a new trial. The sentence imposed was found to be lawful, lenient, and appropriate given the gravity of the offence. The court emphasized that the power to…
Source excerpt
Explore more
