[2021] KEHC 5060 (KLR)
The court held that, although recent appellate decisions have opened the door for review of mandatory minimum sentences in certain circumstances, the facts of this case—where the applicant was convicted of defilement of a 10-year-old girl, who was found in the applicant's house stuffed in a sack, and the applicant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 5060 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Muinde Kithyaka; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 53 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Defilement, Sexual Offences Act, Mandatory Sentences
- 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
Muinde Kithyaka
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review a sentence imposed under section 8(1)(2) of the Sexual Offences Act after dismissal of an appeal.
- 2 Whether the circumstances of the applicant's case warrant review of the life sentence imposed for defilement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, although recent appellate decisions have opened the door for review of mandatory minimum sentences in certain circumstances, the facts of this case—where the applicant was convicted of defilement of a 10-year-old girl, who was found in the applicant's house stuffed in a sack, and the applicant's conduct was deemed highly insensitive—did not warrant the exercise of the court's discretion to review the life sentence imposed. The court further noted that the applicant's appeal had already been determined by the High Court, and any further challenge to the sentence should be pursued at the Court of Appeal, not by way of review in the High Court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
- The applicant is advised to consider pursuing an appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI
HC. MISC. CR. APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2020
MUINDE KITHYAKA............................ APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Before me is an application by way of Chamber Summons filed on 23rd July 2020, the main prayer being a request for review of sentence as follows –
“The court be pleased to consider substituting the sentence imposed under section 8(1) (2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 in line with the Court of Appeal decision in Evans Wanjala Wanyonyi –vs- Rep [2019] eKLR , Court of Appeal No. 312 of 2018 Eldoret; Christopher Ochieng –vs- Rep (2018) eKLR Kisumu; and Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2011 Christopher Ochieng –vs- Rep (2018) eKLR Kisumu and Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2011”.
2. The application is opposed through a replying affidavit sworn on 19th February 2021 by Ann Penny M. Gakumu Senior Principal Prosecuting Counsel who deponded that the Judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal did not outlaw mandatory sentences and that the sentence imposed on the applicant by the trial court was upheld by the High Court in Makueni Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2017, and that if dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, the applicant should have appealed to the Court of Appeal and not come to this court seeking review of sentence.
3. At the hearing of the application, the applicant relied on documents filed and stated that though he had filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, he was not given an appeal file number and thus he filed the present application. Ms. Gakumu for the Director of Public Prosecutions on the other hand, relied on the replying affidavit filed.
4. I have considered the application and the affidavit of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The applicant was convicted of defilement of a girl of 10 years and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was the minimum statutory sentence.
5. Though I have not been availed the trial court record, from the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that the victim was retrieved from the appellant’s house in the morning stuffed in a sack and the appellant was heard by three witnesses asking the victim to come out of his house that early morning.
6. In those circumstances, even though from the reasoning of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, this court could review the sentence, I am of the view that this is not a suitable case for this court to exercise its discretion to review the life sentence imposed, as the appellant was quite insensitive in the way he treated the victim.
7. Consequently, I decline to review the sentence imposed, and instead advise the applicant to consider pursuing an appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal. The application is thus hereby dismissed.
Dated, delivered and signed this 22nd day of July 2021 in open court at Makueni
………………………………….
GEORGE DULU
JUDGE