Martin Mungathia v Republic [2017] KEHC 1904 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU

MISC. CR. PETITION NO. 4 OF 2016

MARTIN MUNGATHIA...................APPLICANT

VS

REPUBLIC .................................RESPONDENT

RULING

Martin Mungathia the Petitioner herein filed this Petition on 20th April 2016 seeking that the court re-addresses his case vide Isiolo PM Court CR. C. No. 891 of 2009 on the grounds that:

1.  My rights to fair trial were breached as envisaged in Section 25(c) of the Constitution.

2. During the trial of this case at the subordinate court, at the subordinate court, the prosecution’s case was flouted with a lot of doubts and inconsistencies.

3. This court re-evaluation the entire case as per powers bestowed on it.

4. That he be accorded fair justice to meet the needs of Justice.

5. Other further grounds to be adduced at the trial of the application thereof.

The Petitioner in his oral submissions in court send that it was his 1st time to appear in court during trial and he was not aware he could call for Occurrence Book.  He said even the complainant was surprised when he was convicted and sentenced to death. He said the complainant was ready to write a letter and explain what happened.

Mrs Mwathi for state/Respondent opposed the Petition for reasons that Petitioner was accorded the right under Article 52 (a) of the Constitution during trial. Prosecuting Counsel submitted that Article 165(3) establishes the Supreme Court and has no relevance to the petition.

Regarding Article 50(6)(b) it was submitted that Petitioner had not disclosed any new evidence to warrant the court to order for a retrial and the petition should be dismissed.

The Petitioner said that when prosecution closed its case, he was made to defend himself but he was not given time to prepare his defence. He said the complainant was ready to come to court.

The issue for determination is whether Petitioner has satisfied the court that he warrants an order for a retrial.

It would have been expected that whatever evidence the Petitioner alleges to have been discovered is disclosed to the court for it to determine whether it was such evidence that could  warrant the court to make an order for retrial.

Neither the Petitioner nor the complainant have laid that evidence before the court.

The Petition is therefore dismissed.

HON. A.ONG’INJO

JUDGE

2. 11. 2017

Before Adwera – Ong’injo Justice

Penina – C/A

Mrs Mwathi for state.

Petitioner- P/P

Court

Ruling Delivered Dated and Signed in court on 2nd November 2017.

HON. A.ONG’INJO

JUDGE