[2013] KEHC 3770 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant was charged under the wrong subsection of the Sexual Offences Act, this did not occasion a failure of justice as required by section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant pleaded guilty to defilement of an eight-year-old child, and the sentence imposed was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3770 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mutie Mutuvi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 88 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; sentence upheld
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing, Sexual Offences Act, Mitigation, Criminal Appeals
- 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
Mutie Mutuvi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for defilement was lawful and justifiable.
- 2 Whether the court has discretion to reduce the sentence imposed under the Sexual Offences Act.
- 3 Whether any irregularity in the charge occasioned a failure of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellant was charged under the wrong subsection of the Sexual Offences Act, this did not occasion a failure of justice as required by section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant pleaded guilty to defilement of an eight-year-old child, and the sentence imposed was within the law. The Sexual Offences Act does not grant the court discretion to reduce the sentence on account of mitigation or age; it only allows for enhancement. Therefore, the appeal on mitigation lacked merit and the original sentence was upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence imposed by the trial court is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Machakos
Criminal Appeal 88 of 2010
[if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0 0 1 2149 12255 102 28 14376 14. 00
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-ZA X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
MUTIE MUTUVI…………………………………….….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………………...RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from original sentence in Makindu Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal case No. 1590/09 by B. Ochieng, PM on 11/11/2009)
JUDGMENT
The appellant was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) (4) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006.
He pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the sentence imposed he now mitigates on appeal.
In his mitigation of appeal he expresses remorse, states that he is aged 88 years and pleads with the court to commute his sentence to a non-custodial one.
The State Counsel Mr. Mukofu left it to the court to exercise its discretion.
The appellant herein was charged with an offence of defilement under section 8(1) (4) of the Sexual Offences Act. The child was aged eight (8) years per the medical report filled; hence the proper section that should have been applied was section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. Had this been the case the appellant would have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
This being the case it brings section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code into play.
It states as follows;-
“subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of an error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during the trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, unless the error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice.
Provided that in determining whether an error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the question whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings”.
With that provision in mind, the sentence having been passed by a court of competent jurisdiction this court cannot alter it on account of irregularity. This is a case where the appellant defiled a child. Today he does not dispute that fact hence no injustice was occasioned by the sentence imposed.
The Sexual Offences Act does not give the court the discretion to reduce the sentence. It can only be enhanced. As a human being I would sympathise with the appellant because of his age but this is not a moral court, it is a legal court. In the circumstances, I find the“Mitigation on appeal” lacking merit.
In the result, I dismiss it and uphold the sentence imposed. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNEDand DELIVEREDat MACHAKOS this 26TH day of FEBRUARY, 2013.
L.N. MUTENDE
JUDGE