[2020] KEHC 10398 (KLR)
The High Court held that it could not interfere with the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for defilement, as the Court of Appeal had already considered the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu and found the sentence appropriate. The court reasoned that to set aside the sentence would amount to exercising...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 10398 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Kazungu Kalama Jefwa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 20 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Petition for Resentencing
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- DB Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Sentencing, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Application of Muruatetu, Sexual Offences Act, Appellate Jurisdiction, Resentencing Principles
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kazungu Kalama Jefwa
Petitioner
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Petition for Resentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory minimum sentence for defilement under the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional in light of the Muruatetu decision.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to resentence where the Court of Appeal has already considered the Muruatetu principles.
- 3 Whether there are compelling reasons or new evidence to interfere with the sentence confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it could not interfere with the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for defilement, as the Court of Appeal had already considered the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu and found the sentence appropriate. The court reasoned that to set aside the sentence would amount to exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Appeal, which is not permitted. Furthermore, there were no compelling reasons or new evidence presented to justify interfering with the sentence confirmed by the appellate court. The petition for resentencing was therefore dismissed in its entirety.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition for resentencing is dismissed in its entirety.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. 20 OF 2020
KAZUNGU KALAMA JEFWA...................PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................ RESPONDENT
Coram: Hon. Justice Nyakundi
Mr Alenga for Respondent
Petitioner in person for Petitioner
RULING
The Petitioner herein was initially charged, convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) and (3) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was aggrieved by the decision of the lower court and subsequently appealed to both appellate courts where the same was dismissed. The instant petition for re-sentencing has been necessitated by the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another vs Republic (2017) eKLR whereby the mandatory death sentence for the offence of murder was declared unconstitutional. In the case of Dismas Wafula Kilwake vs. Republic[2018] eKLR, the Court of Appeal applied the Muruatetu decision Mutatis Mutandis to the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act which imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for defilements.
The Petitioner is seeking that the 20 years imprisonment meted out on him be set aside and for the court to impose an appropriate sentence. The facts of the case against the Petitioner was that on diverse dates between November 2014 and January 2015 he defiled AKN a child aged 15 years six times.
I have considered the petition herein, the supporting affidavit and the judgement of the Court of Appeal. In its judgement, the Court of Appeal stated thus:
“Following conviction, the trial court sentenced the Appellant to 20 years’ imprisonment. In our view and having regard to the circumstances of the case, and notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Muruatetu (supra) we consider the sentence to befitting the offence herein and we so no reason to interfere with it.”
It is evident that the Court of Appeal being fully aware of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Muruatetu case felt that the sentence of 20 years was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. This court cannot therefore set aside the Court of Appeal as it would be tantamount to acting in an appellate jurisdiction to the court of appeal. A petition brought for resentencing under the holding of the Muruatetu case can only be considered the court in sentencing did not take into consideration the direction of the Supreme Court. Where it is apparent that the court passed the sentence in light of the Muruatetu case, this court has not right to interfere with the court’s discretion.
For the reasons aforementioned, I find compelling reasons or new evidence to interfere with the sentence of the trial Magistrate thereafter confirmed by the court of appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
Judgment delivered, dated and signed at Malindi this 21st day of December, 2020.
..........................
R. NYAKUNDI
JUDGE