[2025] KEHC 7016 (KLR)
The High Court held that it lacks jurisdiction or discretion to alter or review a life sentence imposed for defilement of a child under 12 years, as such a sentence is mandatory and constitutional according to the Supreme Court's binding precedent in R v Josiah Gichuki. Furthermore, the court found that Section...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 7016 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackson Ngino Masera; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E014 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing Principles, Sexual Offences Act, Life Imprisonment, Review of Sentence
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jackson Ngino Masera
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or alter a life sentence imposed under Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act for defilement of a child under 12 years.
- 2 Whether Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to life sentences in relation to crediting time spent in remand.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it lacks jurisdiction or discretion to alter or review a life sentence imposed for defilement of a child under 12 years, as such a sentence is mandatory and constitutional according to the Supreme Court's binding precedent in R v Josiah Gichuki. Furthermore, the court found that Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for crediting time spent in remand, is inapplicable to life sentences because the duration of such a sentence is not quantifiable. Consequently, the application for review of sentence lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Masera v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E014 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 7016 (KLR) (22 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 7016 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Narok
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E014 of 2022
CM Kariuki, J
May 22, 2025
Between
Jackson Ngino Masera
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. By application dated on 31/3/2022 the Applicant seeks sentence reviewed pursuant to charge and conviction in Sexual Offences Act whereby he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. The basic ground of the matter is that the Applicant was charged with offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(4) of Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. He pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was late to file appeal thus sought time to be extended to file appeal out of time vide application dated 8/019 but same was rejected. He says he is now 62 years serving sentence that is harsh.
3. He has cited case which had held that life sentence can be tempered with and quantified numbers substitute it which unfortunately have been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Vs. Josiah Gichuki.
4. The Court (Supreme) has held that life sentence in Sexual Offences where a child defiled (victim) is under the age of 12 years is constitutional.
5. This court has no jurisdiction or discretion to tamper with award of life sentence by the trial court. The application also involves the provisions of Section 333(2) of Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya which dictates court in sentencing to take to account period in which the accused was in remand before sentence. However, the same is not applicable in life sentence, as the period of life sentence is not quantifiable to give room for application of Section 333(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
6. There is no quantified amount of years awarded to the accused to enable the trial court or for that matter the Appellate Court to credit accused/Appellant with period in custody during trial. Thus, the upshot is that the application luck merit and is thus dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 22ND MAY, 2025. HON. JUSTICE CHARLES KARIUKIJUDGE