[2016] KEHC 656 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 656 (KLR)

The High Court found that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the 2nd and 4th accused for the offence of committing an indecent act with an adult was illegal because Section 11A of the Sexual Offences Act prescribes a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding fifty thousand...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 656 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bemasa Bim Gembe; Applicant: Eliud Odhiambo Nyawade; Applicant: John Okinyi Olata; Applicant: Micheal Otieno Ojwang; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 109 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Outcome
sentence revised and substituted
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Sentencing Illegality, Sexual Offences, Indecent Act, Revision Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Illegality Sexual Offences Indecent Act Revision Jurisdiction

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bemasa Bim Gembe

Applicant

Eliud Odhiambo Nyawade

Applicant

John Okinyi Olata

Applicant

Micheal Otieno Ojwang

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 10 years imprisonment for the offence of committing an indecent act with an adult was lawful under Section 11A of the Sexual Offences Act.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should revise the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the 2nd and 4th accused for the offence of committing an indecent act with an adult was illegal because Section 11A of the Sexual Offences Act prescribes a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings or both. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the illegal sentence and substitute it with the lawful sentence of five years imprisonment, effective from the date of conviction.

Court Disposition

sentence revised and substituted

Orders

  • The sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the 2nd and 4th accused is set aside as illegal.
  • The 2nd and 4th accused shall instead serve five years imprisonment from the date of conviction.