Peter Manson Okeyo Ouko v Republic [2016] KEHC 1280 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

PETITION NO.  253 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF; ARTICLES 50(1) AND 51(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 50(6) (b) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

BETWEEN

PETER MANSON OKEYO OUKO……………………………….APPLICANT

AND

REPUBLIC ………………………………………………….…...RESPONDENT

RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION.

Issues

i. Whether the doctrine of Resjudicata applies to constitutional petitions

ii.Whether this Petition is Resjudicata Petition No.347 of 2013-Peter Manson Okeyo Ouko v Republic

1. When  this file  was  placed before  me for considerations, I perused  it and noted that on 16th June  2015,  Honourable  M. Ngugi J did  record as  follows:

“Thiscourt had   already heard and determined   petition (sic) by the petitioner raising similar   issues    as this.  I therefore disqualify myself from hearing the matter.  Let it be placed before Lenaola J as (sic) 19th June 2015 for directions.”

2. When the matter   was placed  before  Honourable   Lenaola  J (as he then was) on  19th June  2015  the Honourable  Judge  ( as he  then  was ) made  the following  order:

“I am unable to hear this matter or reasons that I am well known to the petitioner.  Let the matter be mentioned before Korir J for directions on 24th June 2015. ”

3. On  24th June  2015  Honourable  Korir J  directed  the petitioner  to serve the  Director of Public  Prosecution   with all the papers  and ordered for mention on 30th June 2015  for further  directions.

4. Throughout that period, the petitioner herein, Mr Peter Manson Okeyo Ouko was a prose litigant. However, on  18th April  2016   Mr Wilfred Nderitu  advocate appeared  for the  petitioner  and requested  for  6 weeks  to peruse  the petitioner’s file  in court  and for leave  to file  any  amended  petition  or further affidavits  or supplementary  submissions.  The Honourable Korir J directed as follows:

a. Director of Public Prosecution is admitted to the proceedings as an interested party.

b. Mr Nderitu is now on record as the advocate for the petitioner.

c. The amicus curie (Law Society of Kenya) to appoint a new advocate to represent   it in this matter.

d. The Director of Public Prosecution   to get in touch with the victims   of the crime   who will be at liberty to join the proceedings as interested parties.

e. The  petitioner’s  counsel  be at liberty  to file  and serve   an amended  petition, further  affidavits and supplementary submissions   within six weeks   from todays date;

If the  petitioner  will not  be filling  any further  documents, then  what is already  filed should  be  served  upon Director of Public  Prosecution   within  the said  six  weeks;

f. Upon service  the Director of Public  Prosecution   will have  30 days  to file and serve responses  to the pleadings and submissions;

g. The Attorney General be at liberty to file and serve replies to any new pleadings or submissions by the petitioner.  This should  be done   within  30 days  from the date of service; and

h. Mention on 4th July 2016   to confirm compliance   and fix a hearing date.

5. By 4th July  2016, Honourable Korir  J had  been transferred  to Busia High Court where he now serves as the /presiding judge, and I was deployed to the Judicial Review Division    hence this matter came before me for consideration.

6. On 4th July 2016, only the petitioner and   his advocate Mr W. Nderitu were in court.  I directed  the Deputy  Registrar  to serve  the Director of Public  Prosecutions   and the   Honourable Attorney General   to appear on  12th July  2016  at  9. 000 a.m. for directions  on  how to proceed  with the petition.  By that latter date, Mr Nderitu had not filed any amendments to the petition.  Neither had he filed  any further   submissions or affidavits  on behalf of the  petitioner, over six  weeks after the  orders were made on  18th April  2016  by Honourable  Korir J.

7. On  12th July  2016  this court   gave fresh  directions on service of the petition  and by  25th July  2016  when the mater   came up for  mention, Mr Karimi  holding brief for Mr Nderitu informed   the court that all parties  had been served.  I directed d the parties to appear on 7th September 2016 for highlighting of the   submissions at 10. 00 am.

8. On  7th September  2016  Mr Nderitu  raised  the issue  of the High  Court   and  Court of Appeal  records   of the trial  of the petitioner  which had  nonetheless  escaped  his attention.  He also raised the issue of petition No. 347/2013 which this court had brought to his attention.

9. On the latter  issue, Mr Ashimosi  intimated that he  wished  to raise   a preliminary  objection that this petition  is Res judicata  petition  347/2013  and the court  with the agreement  of all the  parties  present  directed  that the issue of  this petition  being  or not  being  resjudicata   petition  347 of 2013  be canvassed first on  17th October  2016.

10. This ruling, therefore determines the preliminary objection filed on 10th October 2016   by the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions to the effect that:

1. The issues  raised in the Petition have been  directly  and substantially  been determined  by this court in Nairobi  High Court   Petition No  347 of  2013;

2. The matter in issue  in the Petition   have been  heard on its  merits  and  finally  decided  by this Honourable  court in Nairobi  HC  Petition  No. 347 of  2013.

3. This Petition/application is therefore Resjudicata.

11. The respondents   therefore prayed that   the petition be struck out in limine.

12. For  record  purposes , it is  the court   that  brought  to the  attention of the parties’  advocates  the issue of Petition No 347/2013   appearing  to be similar  to this Petition.  This   was after  perusing  the proceedings  in this Petition and noting that Honourable M. Ngugi J on  16th June  2015 disqualified   herself  from hearing  the matter, for  reasons  that she had  already heard  and determined  a petition by  the petitioner  raising  similar  issues  to  this.

13. I therefore  found it  appropriate  to bring  to the attention of the parties  the matter which Honourable M. Ngugi  J had  concluded   for the  parties to peruse and address  the court on  whether  this petition is in anyway  resjudicata  Petition No. 347 of 2013.

14. The parties  advocates  urged  the preliminary  objection orally before me, on 17th October  2016  with Mr Ashimosi  urging  the preliminary objection on behalf  of the Director of Public  Prosecution.

15. According to Mr Ashimosi, the issues raised in this Petition are directly and substantially as the issues raised in Petition No. 347/2013 which was   heard and determined. Namely:

i. That this  Petition  is framed  to be brought under  Article  50(6 )  of the  Constitution  seeking for a new trial based  on new  and compelling   evidence  which  meets  the threshold  under  the  Constitution;

ii. That Petition   No. 347/2013  was brought  under the same  Article 50(6) of the Constitution and framed  as an issue for  determination  by Honourable  Mumbi  Ngugi J  and the decision at page 7 of the judgment at paragraph 35   delivered on  11th November   2014  is the same issue  as the issue  in this petition;

iii. Further, that at paragraph  44 page  10 of  the said judgment, the learned  judge  deliberated on  whether there  was new  and compelling  evidence  to warrant  a new trial;

iv.  That  at page  14 paragraph  63 the learned judge   made a finding  that the petitioner   had not   made out  a case for  a new  trial  under Article  50(b) of the  Constitution.

16. Mr Ashimosi submitted that the grounds for new and compelling   evidence are substantially the same in both petitions, as what was raised in the earlier petition.  He gave  an example  being:

i. “ whether  the court  was   influenced  to make a  predetermined  decision  based on  correspondences  between  the parties;

ii. whether  there  was evidence  suppressed  by the appellate  court;

iii. That the issue of perjury, obstruction and discovery of new evidence said to be compelling, were all raised in the earlier petition.

17. On whether  Resjudicata  doctrine  applies  to  Constitutional  Petitions   as well, Mr Ashimosi relied on Okiya Omtata  Okoiti  V Communications  Authority of Kenya  &  14  Others [2015] e KLR  page 9  of the judgment  dated  10th March 2015  wherein the court discussed   that doctrine.  Mr Ashimosi submitted that where parties merely repress issues which could have been raised in the previous case, the matter is resjudicata.

18. According   to Mr Ashimosi, from the time   when Petition No. 347/2013 was determined, no new matter or evidence   has been raised hence this petition is incompetent   and the same should be dismissed.

19. Mr Sekwe on behalf of the Attorney General submitted, associating himself with Mr Ashimosi’s submissions and supporting the preliminary   objection.  He added  that the petition  herein  and Petition  347/2013  are by  the same  Petitioner; that the petitioner   in the earlier   petition sought the same  cause of  action and that the orders  being sought  are the same.  That the petitioner seeks   for a new trial to be heard based on Article 50(6) of the Constitution based on new and compelling   evidence.  That it is  the  same evidence   which  was  placed  before  M. Ngugi J   which is   the same  evidence    being  relied  on in this matter.

20. Mr Sekwe submitted that resjudicata bars subsequent proceedings determined conclusively by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.  That  there is a  striking  similarity in the two  petitions  and that nothing  had changed  since the  determination of Petition  347/2013   to warrant   the  petitioner  herein  filing  a new petition Under Article 50(6) of the Constitution.

21. That moreso, the new and compelling evidence is not highlighted.

22. Those parties     are the same, the cause of action is the same and orders sought are the same. Counsel  relied  on Civil Application No. 16/2012  by the Court of Appeal  in Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd & Another Vs Kenya   Commercial Bank Ltd [2014]  e KLR at paragraph  53  page  17  where the  Court of Appeal, citing the  Singapore case  in  Management  Corporation Stratta Title  Plan  No. 301  V Lee  Tat  Development  Pte  Ltd [2009] S  GHC  234 decided the principle of finality.  He further relied onLilian Njeri Muraya Vs Virginia Nyambura ELC 127/2014 where the same principles were allegedly espoused.

23. According to Mr Sekwe, this petition is an abuse of the court process hence the court should dismiss it. In opposing  the preliminary  objection  Mr Nderitu  counsel for  the petitioner  submitted that  a person  can come  before the same court   under Article  50(6)  of the Constitution  as often as the   occasion arises.  That coming to court once does not per se bar him from coming back again.  That the   respondents   had not   provided the court with   pleadings that  were  filed in  Petition No. 347/2013  to enable  the court to fully  discern  the issues   in that Petition  vis  avis  the issues  in this petition.  That all the respondents have done is gloss over the two petitions on the prayers and grounds being substantially the same.

24. According to Mr Nderitu, the earlier  Petition  related mainly to the issue   of DNA  testing   while in this  petition  the issue is mainly  correspondence  between  the office of the Attorney General and the prosecution which  are totally  two different   issues.

25. Mr Nderitu submitted that from the preliminary objection as filed, there is no information on the face thereof that there is a challenge on facts of the previous petition.  Further, that the question of what issues there are is a question in contention which cannot be resolved by way of a preliminary objection.

26. In his view, the preliminary objection  herein in based  on facts and not  on a  pure  point of law, as  was  held in the Mukisa  Biscuit Manufacturing Company V West   end  Distributors.  It  was further  submitted  that in  the previous  Petition No. 347 of  2013, the 1st respondent  was not a party, which then disqualifies the  argument  that this  litigations is between the same  parties  or that  the same parties  are litigating   under the same  title.

27. Further, Mr Nderitu submitted that paragraph 31 of the sixth Schedule of the Constitution separates the office of the Attorney General from the Director of Public Prosecutions although historically the two appeared to be one, and that the two   respondents   cannot come into the matter under the same   title.

28. In addition, it  was submitted that  Article  157  of the Constitution  bars  the Attorney General  from representing  the Government  in the  criminal proceedings.  That in these proceedings which are criminal, the respondents have diverse roles to play in this petition.

29. In Mr  Nderitu’s  view, although  there was reference to Article  50(6) of the Constitution, the substantive  operative  Article in the previous petition  was  Article  35  of the Constitution relating to DNA evidence.  That there is no such prayer in this petition.  That the  prayers  in petition No. 347/2013   are totally  different  from the prayers  in this petition  and that  there is totally  nothing  availed  to this court  to show that  the  issues  raised in the current  petition   on new and  compelling  evidence  were already  available  at  the time  the order in the earlier petition  was  made.

30. That the  court is  concerned  with date  of discovery  of that  new evidence  and that  at the  hearing, the  petitioner will show  when the  new and  compelling  evidence  was made  available  and what   efforts  were made  to get the new  and  compelling  evidence.  Accordingly, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner   that the cases referred to have little   relevance to the specific circumstances of this case.

31. Mr Nderitu   further urged  the court  to examine  this matter  from the  perspective  that the petitioner  was  a legally  unaided  person   and that now  he  is being represented  by a probono  advocate  and serving  18  years both pre and post conviction after   his death  sentence was  commuted to  life imprisonment.

32. That although there may be  some issues  which are   repeated  in both petitions, it   would be  a mockery  of justice    to dismiss  the  petition based   on Resjudicata  when the grounds  for asking of the  new trial  are new.

33. Further, that the provision of Article 50(6) of the Constitution is to allow the person in similar   circumstances seek justice, in appreciation of a previously failed system.  That a window was being opened to consider   the criminal justice   system.  He urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection and allow the petition to be heard on its merits.

34. In a brief rejoinder, Mr Ashimosi submitted that the preliminary objection was not based on contested facts.  He urged the court to examine the pleadings for the two petitions and discern the similarities.

Determination

35. I have  carefully   considered  the  1st respondent’s preliminary    objection  as supported by the  2nd  respondent,   I have also  considered the parties ‘ advocates  submissions  for  and against   the preliminary  objection, and the  case law  cited.

36. The main issue for determination is whether this petition is resjudicata petition No. 347/2013; and if so whether Resjudicata can be taken as a preliminary objection is constitutional petition.

37. Commencing with the latter issue, the case of OkiyaOmtatah Okoiti V Communication Authority of Kenya & Others(supra) is instructive.  In that  case, Lenaola  J,  referring  to several authorities, including  his own  decision in Okiya  Omtatah Okoiti  & Others  vs Attorney General & 2 Others  petition No. 593/2013  opined that :

“Whereas these principles of Resjudicata have generally been applied    liberally in civil suits, the same   cannot be said of their application in constitutional matters.  I say  so because, in my view, the principle  of resjudicata  can and should  only be  invoked  in constitutional matters  in the  clearest  of cases and where a party  is relitigating  the same matter before  the  constitutional  court and where the court  is called  upon the re- determine  an issue between  the same parties  and in the same  subject  matter.  While, therefore, the principle is a principle of law of wide application, therefore   it must be sparingly invoked in rights based litigation and the reason is obvious.”

38. From the above  opinion, though  persuasive, I am  in agreement   with the learned  Lenaola J ( as he then  was ) in the above two  decisions  that  resjudicata is applicable  in constitutional matters but   only in the clearest of cases.

39. In the instant  case, the respondents  contend that this petition  is a replica  of petition No. 347/2013  which  was heard and determined  by Honourable  M. Ngugi J and therefore there is no  new matter or compelling  evidence  that could not be  produced  at the time  Petition No. 347/2013   was heard  and determined.

40. On the other hand, the petitioner  avers that the new and  compelling  evidence in this case is quite different  from what   was sought  to be relied  upon un Petition  247/2013  in that in  the former  petition, it  related to DNA  materials  whereas  in this petition, it  relates to  correspondence  between  the victim’s relatives  and the court   and  the prosecution   which the   petitioner  believes  may  have  greatly  influenced  the  outcome   of the criminal  trial to his  detriment.

41. Further, that in constitutional petitions, the court  should be  cautions  in considering  res judicata  doctrine  so as   not to  oust  the petitioner who is  serving  a life sentence, from the  seat of  justice   since what is  sought  to be challenged  is new matters which  were  not within   the knowledge  and possession of the petitioner.

42. For this court to find that this petition  is Resjudicata  Petition  No. 347/2013, it must be   satisfied  that clearly, the  petitioner herein is    relitigating the same  matter before the same  court over the  same issues  between the same parties  and on the same  subject matter.

43. I am in agreement  with the decisions cited by the  1st  respondent’s counsel   that In ET V Attorney General [2012] e KLR the  court held that:

“  the courts must always  be vigilant  to guard   against litigants   evading  the doctrine  of resjudicata  by introducing   new causes  of action so as  to seek the  same  remedy  before the court  in another  way and in the form of a new  cause of  action which  has been  resolved   by a court   of competent   jurisdiction.”

44. And in  Njangu V Wambugu & Another  Nairobi  HCC  2340/1991  where Kuloba J stated  as follows   regarding  the importance  of having  a closure  to litigation;

“ If parties were allowed  to go on  litigating   forever  the same   issue  with  the same  opponent  before  courts of competent  jurisdiction merely  because he gives  his aces  some  cosmetic  facelift   on every  occasion  he comes  to court, then  I do not  see  the  use of  the doctrine  of resjudicata.”

45. Richard  Kuloba   in his  book  “Judicial Hints  on Civil Procedure  2nd Edition  scribes  as follows:

“ the plea  of resjudicata  applies not only to  points upon which  the first  court  was  actually required to adjudicate  but  to  every point   which the parties, exercising  reasonable diligence, might  have brought  forward at  the time.   The subject  matter in the  subsequent  suit must be covered by the  previous suit, for resjudicata   to apply: Law  Ag  V-P in Kamunye  and others  V Pioneer  General  Assurance  Society  Ltd [1971] EA 263, (20 October 1970) on  appeal from the High Court  of Uganda  but relying in Jadra karsan V Haman Singh Bhogal [1953]  20 EACA 74 (10/3/1953),  an  appeal from the Supreme Court of  Kenya, and  has also been followed  by the Court of Appeal  in Kenya, in the case of  Hawkesworth  Vs Attorney  General [1974] EA  406  (7/10/1974).”

46. Indeed, as stated by  Lenaola J   in theOkiya  Omtatah  Okoiti (supra) case, it is not  proper for  parties  to have  precemeal litigation, and a  party ought  to litigate  in one suit   all matters  that belong to that subject in controversy.

47. In Popin (K) Ltd &3 Others  V Habib  Bank  Attorney General  Zurich  [1990] KLR  609, the court  held that:

“ but  there is a  wider sense  in which  the doctrine  may be  appealed  to,  so that it  becomes   an abuse of   process to raise  in subsequent  proceedings matters  which could and  therefore should  have been litigated  in earlier proceedings.  The locus classicus of that aspect   of resjudicata  is the  judgment  of  Wigram  Vc In Henderson  V Henderson  [1843] Hare  00, 115, where  the judge says:

Where  given a matter  becomes the subject   of  litigation, in and of an  adjudicate  by, court of competent  jurisdiction, the court  requires  the parties  to that litigation to bring  forward  their  whole case, and  will not, except  under special  circumstances, permit  the  same parties  to open the same  subject  of litigation  in respect  of matter which  might have   been brought  forward, only   because   they have, from  negligence, inadvertence, or even  accident  omitted  part of their    case.  The plea of  resjudicata   applies,  except    in special cases, not only  to points  which the court   was actually  required   by the parties  to form an  opinion and   pronounce  judgment, but to  every  point which  properly  belonged   to the subject  of litigation and which the  parties, exercising reasonable  diligence, might  have brought  forward  at the time.”

48. In the present petition, it is not in  doubt  that the petitioner  is the same, against  the Republic  who is now  represented  by the Director of Public Prosecutions  and the  Attorney General, who occupy independent offices established under the provisions  of Article  156  of the Constitution  and Article  157 of  the Constitution respectively.

49. The  Director of Public Prosecutions  is  currently  exclusively in charge of criminal prosecutions  which  was  the  function of the Attorney General  prior to  24th August  2010 whereas  the Attorney General  is enjoined to these  proceedings as the  Principal Legal Advisor   to the Government  and having  been responsible  for all  criminal prosecutions at the material time that the petitioner  was arrested, arraigned in court and tried  and  convicted for the offence  of murder.  It therefore   follows that the respondents can be considered as one party representing the Government of Kenya in criminal and legal matters against the Government.

50. In the Petition No. 347/2013, the petitioner brought the petition under Article 50(6) of the Constitution and so is this petition. However, the basis upon the new trial   was sought in petition no.  347/2013   is not the same as this petition. In the earlier  petition, the   petitioner sought  for the following  principal orders:

1. That the following  exhibits  originally forwarded to the government chemist   by Buruburu Police Station in connection  with High Court  criminal case  No. 54/1999  for testing, namely, the   multi coloured blood  stained  sweater  of the deceased, the blood  stained  mucoid  material retrieved  from the vagina   of the deceased, the torn  whit  pant of  the deceased, the blood of the deceased, the hair strand  and the skin extracts  from the blood stained  finger  nails  be   retested  at both government  chemist  and as an independent  forensic  laboratory  and the results so found be deposited   with the court,

2. That the  true certified  copies of all the laboratory  analysis notes written at the time of  the  testing  of the exhibits  forwarded by Buruburu Police station  to the government  analyst   regarding High Court  criminal case  No. 54 of  1999 be provided  to me.  The petitioner and to the court for    review of the same;

That  true certified  copies of the  documentation generated    at the time of  the analysis  by Mr J.K. Mungai, the  government chemist, including   true certified  copies of the test  paper strips  of the  DNA (PW/HLD Q A1) analysis   alleged to  have been   used in the tests   be provided to me, the petitioner;

4. That certified  copies of all the  post mortem  examination photos  taken  at the City  Mortuary  on  23rd December  1998  in the case of Jennifer  Wangari  Macharia(deceased), be  provide  to me  the petitioner.

5. That certified  copies of all the scene of  crime photos  ref. No.CIS/NA/SOC/VOL 6/47/99 dated   26th March  1999 and taken on  19th December  1998  in the case of Jennifer  Wangari Macharia (deceased), be provided  to me the Petitioner.”

51. The above  prayers are contained  in the supplementary  notice of motion in the above petition , the Learned Judge  M. Ngugi  J noted that prayer  1 of   the petition dated  23rd July  2013  seeks  orders  that  he be granted  “ a  conservatory  order to be  subjected  to forensic  DNA  testing  by both  the government  chemist  as well as  an independent forensic  laboratory.”

52. In the humble petition of the  petitioner herein, the facts  upon which  the new  trial  under Article  50(6)  of the Constitution  is sought  are, principally, inter alia:

6. that  new and  very compelling  evidence  has emerged  in the form of  proof  that vested  and interest  (sic) parties  had running  communication  with judicial officers, including  then  serving  Chief  Justice  and sought  to and sought  to and  possibly succeeded  in influencing  them to make a  pre- determined decision.

7. That new  and compelling  evidence  has emerged  in the form of communication  between   a particular  vested  interest ( who  happens  to be  the husband   of  a key prosecution witness)  and a judicial  officer at the  time of  my trial proving  that there   was collusion between  the police officers  handling  the case  and vested interests  to frame  me for the offence.  The letter is  an exact  replica  of portions  of the investigating  officer’s  statement  and evidence  in court   and  I was   never made  aware of  its  existence  at trial or at appeal.   This is not  something  which an  ordinary  citizen  without  control of the entire  pre- trial  process  could have   come across  and  authontatively  quoted  from.

8. That  new  and compelling  evidence has emerged in the form  of correspondence  between the  office of the then Attorney General and  the police  proving that  pertinent   evidence in the form of statements from possible  key suspects  in the murder      (who happened  to be on duty  at the very spot  where the deceased  met her death)  was deliberately  suppressed by the prosecution.

9. That new and compelling evidence  has emerged  showing   the possibility   of the existence of two different  decisions  reached  by the Court of Appeal in my  matter and  which go in buttressing  the possibility  of outside  interference  in the matter  as  alluded  above.

10. That is it only fair and just that my prayer for a new trial be granted in the wider interest of justice and in accordance with the law.

53. Whereas this court, from a perusal  of the entire petition herein and  petition  347/2013   agrees  that the  subject  matter  giving  rise to  the trial and conviction  and sentencing  to death  of the petitioner is the  same in both petitions  as it concerns his conviction  for the murder  of his wife  Jennifer Wangari  Macharia   vide Nairobi HC criminal case No. 54/1999; and that the petitioner’s appeal to the Court of Appeal  vide CA 78/2002 was dismissed; and  that following that dismissal of his criminal appeal  he remained a condemned convict   awaiting his execution until 2009 when the President   commuted death  sentence imposed  on the petitioner with life  sentence and finally, as  this court  writes  this ruling, is well aware  that on  20th October  2016  the petitioner   was released  from life  in prison  at the President’s  pleasure  and  is now  a free  person;  I do not  agree that this  petition is resjudicata  petition No. 347/2013.

54. The reason is a simple  one that  the facts  relating  to  the new   and compelling  evidence  that is sought to be adduced  are substantially  different  from the facts  in the petition 347/2013.

55. As  correctly submitted by  Mr  Nderitu  counsel for  the  petitioner, in the earlier  petition, the facts  related to DNA evidence  whereas  in this matter, the facts relate  to several correspondence  and writings  which are contained  in the petitioner’s supplementary  affidavit   bundle filed in court  on 21st  July 2015.

56. As to whether  that evidence  is new and or compelling  or reliable  or substantial or appears to be highly  probative   of the case against the petitioner convict  is not  for determination at this stage, but  for consideration at the substantive  hearing of the petition.

57. In  my humble  view,  this petition  being  a constitutional petition would  only be   Resjudicata petition No. 347/2013  if there  was evidence that at the time of the  hearing of petition  347/2013, the  petitioner  had in his possession or  that he  was in a position to access  the alleged   new and  compelling  evidence  relating  to correspondence between key parties to the criminal  case including  the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate and the Attorney General  among  others.

58. This court is conscious of the fact that a person on death row or one serving life sentence is an anxious person.  He is   not a free  person capable  of,  on his own  accord, to access  information such as the one  which is the subject  of this  petition, since  that information  was not part of or contained in the committal  bundles and neither  was it  relied  upon by the prosecution or  the defence at the time of the  trial.

59. The respondents have also not demonstrated that the petitioner    was capable of accessing   or possessing the allegedly new   and compelling   evidence.  There is   also no evidence that the petitioner had the evidence   in question but withheld it so as to come before this court in piecemeal.

60. In  other words, this is not one of  those clear   cases where  this court  would find  that a resjudicata  case has been  made  out and  it would therefore  be a traversity  of justice  to oust the petitioner   from his quest  to benefit from the new dawn exemplified in Article 50(6) of the Constitution and possibly prove the prosecution  wrong on its evidence  that nearly send him to the gallows, thanks to the merciful hand of the President granted by the same Constitution.

61. Off course, this court cannot fail to empathize with the family of the deceased Jennifer Wangari Macharia who lost their beloved daughter and to her children who lost their beloved mother in the hands of cruel people.

62. On  the basis  of the above   analysis, I am not  satisfied that  the preliminary objection  based on the doctrine  of resjudicata  was  well  taken.  The same is dismissed   with no orders as to costs.

63. To bring this matter to a closure, the petitioner is now directed to forthwith and without any delay set down his petition for hearing and determination by the court   on its merits.

64. Hearing of the petition shall be on 28th February, 2017 by consent. The Petitioner to serve the Attorney General with Notice of hearing.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 16th day of November 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Wilfred Nderitu for the Petitioner

Mr Spira h/b for Mr Ashimosi for the Respondents

CA: Adline