[2010] KEHC 1106 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant for attempted defilement was within the law as prescribed by Section 9(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The appellant did not pursue the appeal against conviction, and the only issue before the court was whether the sentence should be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1106 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kenneth Kibiwott Kipchuma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 168 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Offences, Sentencing Principles, Attempted Defilement, Indecent Act, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Kenneth Kibiwott Kipchuma
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 10 years imprisonment for attempted defilement was lawful and appropriate.
- 2 Whether there were mitigating factors warranting reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant for attempted defilement was within the law as prescribed by Section 9(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The appellant did not pursue the appeal against conviction, and the only issue before the court was whether the sentence should be reduced. The court considered the appellant's mitigation but found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the sentence, noting that the appellant was not a student as claimed and that the trial magistrate had exercised discretion correctly. The appeal against both conviction and sentence was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of 10 years imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2009
KENNETH KIBIWOTT KIPCHUMA:::::::::::::::::::::::APPEALANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
I.Procedure
1. Having filed this appeal against conviction and sentence on the 28th September 2009, this court notes that whereas the registry records reveals the appeal was filed on time, it was actually filed out of time.The sentence and conviction having been passed on 18th August 2009.
2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the 23rd November 2009. after the lower records were prepared on 11th November 2009.
3. On 1st March 2010, the appeal was heard before Osiemo J.This Hon. Judge reserved judgment for 29th April 2010. Unfortunately, the Hon. Judge was transferred out of this Station before the judgment could be delivered.
4. The appeallant opted, on being asked, to continue from where the appeal had reached, namely the writing of the judgment.
II.Appeal
5. The appellant was originally charged with the offence of:
A.Attempted Defilement:
Contrary to Section 9(1) as read with Section 9(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006.
The Particulars of Offence:
On the 21st day of November 2008 in Keiyo District within Rift Valley Province unlawfully and intentionally attempted to commit an act of defilement on S.J.K. aged 7 years old.
B.Alternative Charge:
Indecent act with a girl contrary to Section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006.
The Particulars of offences:
On the 21st November 2008 in Keiyo District within the Rift Valley Province unlawfully did an indecent act on S.J.K by touching the private parts . . . .
6. the appeallant, pleaded not guilty to the charge.In brief the victim a 7 year old girl informed the court how the appeallant led her into a passion field farm by way of deceitfully misleading her that she required to do some errands there.The appeallant defiled her but when both of them were taken to the clinical officer (instead of a medical doctor) the said clinical officer found no evidence of penetration.The appeallant was therefore charged with the offence of attempted defilement and an alternative charge of indecent assault.
7. After trial, he was found guilty, convicted and sentence to10 years imprisonment on the main charge.Being dissatisfied with this, he appealled to this High Court.
III.Appeal
8. The main grounds of appeal relied on by the appeallant was:
i)That he pleaded not guilty to the offence.
ii)That the trial magistrate erred in relying on the evidence of the sister and father whilst the victim herself never complained.
iii)No evidence was presented to prove the allegation.
iv)He was a 1st offender and prays for a non custodial sentence.
9. When the appeal came for hearing, it appears the appeallant abandoned his appeal on conviction.He prayed only on the aspect of sentencing.That this be reduced from the 10 years that was imposed.
10. In reply, the Republic argued that the minimum
sentence was 10 years.The sentence was in order and
lawful.
IV.Opion
11. The appeallant did not pursue the aspect of conviction.
I would accordingly not interfere with this.The issue before me is that of sentencing.Should thisbe reduced?
12. The appeallant mitigating factor is that he wishes to
complete his education.From the evidence before court, he was not a student but a headsman.He prays that the sentence be reduced on the said given grounds.
13. I am of the opinion that the sentence is within the law.
(see Section 9(2) of the Sexual Offences Act).That the Trial Magistrate came to the correct conclusion as to sentence.I will not interfere with the decision.
14. The appeal against conviction and sentence is
dismissed.
Dated this 29th day of September, 2010 at Eldoret
M.A.ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocate
Nil
Appeallant in Person