The court held that the legality or otherwise of the death penalty does not constitute new and compelling evidence within the meaning of Article 50(6) of the Constitution. The petitioner's arguments regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty and the right to mitigation did not meet the threshold for a new trial or resentencing, as these issues had already been settled by the Court of Appeal in Joseph Njuguna Mwaura and Others v Republic, which declared the death penalty constitutional and lawful. The court emphasized that it was bound by this precedent and that the petitioner's application lacked merit as it did not present any new or compelling evidence that would justify reopening the case or revising the sentence.