[2023] KEHC 3744 (KLR)
The court found no grounds advanced to justify interference with the sentence imposed by the trial court. The sentence of twelve years' imprisonment for the offence of defilement under Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act was lawful. The court exercised its supervisory and revisionary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3744 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Njoroge Kiiru; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 460 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision Application
- Outcome
- application for revision dismissed; sentence of twelve years' imprisonment upheld
- Judges
- HM Nyaga
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing Principles, Criminal Revision, Sexual Offences, Supervisory Jurisdiction
- 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
Stephen Njoroge Kiiru
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there are grounds to warrant interference with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no grounds advanced to justify interference with the sentence imposed by the trial court. The sentence of twelve years' imprisonment for the offence of defilement under Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act was lawful. The court exercised its supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code and determined that there was no manifest irregularity or illegality in the proceedings or sentence. The applicant was advised of his liberty to pursue a formal application for re-sentencing or to file an appeal, but the sentence as imposed was to stand.
Court Disposition
application for revision dismissed; sentence of twelve years' imprisonment upheld
Orders
- The applicant shall continue serving the sentence imposed by the trial court.
- The applicant is at liberty to make a formal application for re-sentencing or file an appeal against the conviction and sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Kiiru v Republic (Criminal Revision 460 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3744 (KLR) (27 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3744 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Criminal Revision 460 of 2022
HM Nyaga, J
April 27, 2023
Between
Stephen Njoroge Kiiru
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant Stephen Njoroge Kiiru, was charged and convicted of the offence of Defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2006.
2. The particulars of the offence were that on June 15, 2018 at [Particulars Withheld] in Nakuru North District within Nakuru County, unlawfully and intentionally committed an Act by inserting his male genital organ namely penis into a female genital organ namely vagina of SNM a child aged 15 years’ old which caused penetration.
3. On July 16, 2020, he was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment.
4. The file has been placed before this court for Revision, under the ongoing decongestion exercise.
5. The purpose of the revisionary powers of the High Court is to correct manifest irregularities or illegalities and give appropriate directions. The High Court has supervisory powers over the subordinate courts and Tribunals.Section 362 of theCriminal Procedure Codedonates the power thus,“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any Criminal proceedings before any Subordinate Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court”.Section 367 Criminal Procedure Code provides that“when a case is revised by the High Court it shall certify its decision or order to the court by which the sentence or order so revised was recorded or passed and the court to which the decision of order is so certified shall thereupon make such orders as are conformable to the decision so certified, and, if necessary, the record shall be amended in accordance therewith”.
6. In this case, there are no grounds advanced to persuade this court to interfere with the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
7. The sentence is lawful and the Applicant is therefore ordered to continue serving the same as imposed by the trial court.
8. Of course the applicant is at liberty to make a formal application/petition for re-sentencing or file an appeal against the conviction and sentence.
DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 27TH APRIL, 2023. H. M. NYAGAJUDGEIn the presence of:C/A JenifferMs Murunga for stateApplicant present