[2023] KEHC 25368 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was convicted of defiling a child of tender years, for which the law prescribes life imprisonment. The sentence of 20 years was therefore already lenient. The court noted that the applicant was on bond from 19 March 2010 until sentencing, meaning the period spent in remand was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 25368 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ronald Induche Mulumba; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E033 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Reduction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing Principles, Remission of Sentence, Sexual Offences Act, Consideration of Remand Period
- 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
Ronald Induche Mulumba
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Reduction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 20 years imprisonment for defilement was harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the period spent in remand should be considered in reduction of sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was convicted of defiling a child of tender years, for which the law prescribes life imprisonment. The sentence of 20 years was therefore already lenient. The court noted that the applicant was on bond from 19 March 2010 until sentencing, meaning the period spent in remand was minimal and had been considered. The court held that there was no merit in the application for reduction of sentence, as the sentence imposed was both lawful and lenient given the circumstances and statutory requirements.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for reduction of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Mulumba v Republic (Miscellaneous Application E033 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 25368 (KLR) (14 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 25368 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Bungoma
Miscellaneous Application E033 of 2021
REA Ougo, J
November 14, 2023
Between
Ronald Induche Mulumba
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Ronald Induche Mulumba, the applicant, was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. He claims that the sentence is harsh and excessive. He seeks that the court exercise mercy and leniency by considering section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. He claims that he is remorseful for the offence and he is a first offender he pleads for a second chance. He seeks that the court consider the period spent in remand. He is 30 years old married with 3 children and his parents are very weak and they depend on him. He relies on the following cases; Wycliffe Wangusi Mafura vs. Republic appeal no. 22 of 2016 at Eldoret, Robert Achapa Okello vs. Republic at Kisumu, Paul Odhiambo Mbolla vs Rep in Misc. Application No. 15 of 2019 at Kisumu where the court reduced the sentence to minimum.
3. The application is opposed. Miss Omondi submitted that the victim in the applicant’s case was 10 years old. The law provides for life imprisonment. The sentence was lenient. The court should not disturb the sentence.
4. The applicant is seeking a reduction of his sentence from 20 years. The evidence adduced in the lower court is that the victim was 5 years old. The applicant was caught red-handed defiling the minor by her mother. The child he defiled was of tender years and the law under section 8(2) provides for life imprisonment. 20 years in my view was lenient sentence. The proceedings indicate that the applicant was presented in court on the 22/02/2010, he was released on bond on the 19. 3.2010.
5. Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as follows;(2)Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code. Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody
6. He was on bond from 19. 3.2010 until the date he was sentenced. I find no merit in the application, the sentence was lenient and deserving. The application is dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. R.E. OUGOJUDGEIn the presence of;Ronald Induche Mulumba/Applicant- PresentMiss Omondi - For the Respondent