[2023] KEHC 23773 (KLR)
The High Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for rape imposed on the applicant, substituting it with a six-year sentence. This was based on the unconstitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as established in Philip Mueke Maingi v DPP & Another, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23773 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geoffrey Kiptoo Langat; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E036 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- sentence revised; applicant released
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Minimum Sentences, Sexual Offences, Probation Reports
- 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
Geoffrey Kiptoo Langat
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory minimum sentence imposed on the applicant for rape was constitutional in light of recent jurisprudence.
- 2 Whether the applicant's circumstances justified a revision of sentence to a non-custodial or reduced custodial term.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for rape imposed on the applicant, substituting it with a six-year sentence. This was based on the unconstitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as established in Philip Mueke Maingi v DPP & Another, the applicant's status as a first offender, demonstrated remorse, positive rehabilitation reports from prison and probation authorities, and the readiness of the applicant's family to support reintegration. The court found that the applicant had already served the revised sentence in full and ordered his immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence revised; applicant released
Orders
- The sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a sentence of six (6) years.
- The adjusted sentence of six (6) years to run from 20th June, 2017.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Langat v Republic (Criminal Revision E036 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 23773 (KLR) (19 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23773 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kericho
Criminal Revision E036 of 2023
JK Sergon, J
October 19, 2023
Between
Geoffrey Kiptoo Langat
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Geoffrey Kiptoo Langat, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant was convicted of the offence of rape contrary to section 3 (1) (a) (b) (c) as read with section 3 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006.
2. On 20th June, 2017, Hon. S. Ngetich, the then Learned Senior Resident Magistrate sentenced the applicant to serve ten (10) years imprisonment.
3. The proceedings relating to the aforesaid case, that is Kericho CMC S.O Case No. 68 of 2016 Republic-vs-Geoffrey Kiptoo Langat were placed before this Court pursuant to the provisions of section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The Probation Officer filed a sentence review report on 17th October, 2023. In the said report it was noted that the Applicant was remorseful and regrets committing the said offence. The probation officer noted that the family members were willing and ready to receive him back home and therefore urged the court to exercise leniency.
5. The prison authorities stated that while the applicant was at Naivasha Maximum Prison he acquired basic skills in tailoring whereas at Naivasha Medium Prison he learnt the basics of mechanics but concentrated more on wiring of vehicles. The prison authorities were of the opinion that the applicant had reformed and were therefore in favour of a non-custodial sentence.
6. The probation officer noted that the current home environment was favourable for his release on a non-custodial sentence as the family members were receptive and willing to assist him in the reintegration process and further rehabilitation. The probation officer was therefore of the view that the applicant was suitable to serve on a non-custodial sentence, the probation officer proposed that the applicant be considered to serve on a probation order for a period of one (1) year, subject to the court’s discretion.
7. The Applicant has so far served six (6) years and four (4) months and is remaining with (3) years and eight (8) months to complete his sentence. The Applicant was senence to serve the mandatory minimum sentence. In the case of Philip Mueke Maingi -vs- DPP & Another (2022) KEHC 13118 (KLR) minimum sentences were declared unconstitutional. It is apparent from the proceedings of the Trial Court that the Applicant was a first offender. Had the Learned Trial Magistrate taken into account the aforesaid fact, he would have pronounced a lesser sentence.
8. In the circumstance this court is entitled to interfere with the sentence meted out in exercise of its revisionary power. I find a sentence of six (6) years to be appropriate. Consequently, the sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment is set aside and is substituted with a sentence of six (6) years. The adjusted sentence of six (6) years to run from the date of sentence i.e. from 20th June, 2017.
9. It is therefore apparent that as of now, the Applicant Namely:- Geoffrey Kiptoo Langat has served the sentence in full. He should be set free forthwith from Prison unless lawfully held.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. ...........................J.K. SERGONJUDGEIn presence of :-C/Assistant – Mr. MusyokiApplicant – Present in Person