[2023] KEHC 23636 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 23636 (KLR)

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it removes judicial discretion, as established in Maingi & 5 others v Director of Public Prosecutions & another. However, the petitioner failed to provide evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 23636 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Abel Mwiti; Respondent: Director Of Public Prosecution
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E238 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition partly allowed; sentence reviewed
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Defilement Offence, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Sentencing Discretion, Constitutionality of Statutes
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Defilement Offence Mandatory Minimum Sentences Sentencing Discretion Constitutionality of Statutes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abel Mwiti

Applicant

Director Of Public Prosecution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act is constitutional in light of Article 28 of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a review of sentence based on his status as a student and the absence of material for Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it removes judicial discretion, as established in Maingi & 5 others v Director of Public Prosecutions & another. However, the petitioner failed to provide evidence regarding the date of arrest, precluding the application of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to resentence the petitioner to 10 years imprisonment from the date of conviction, balancing the need for proportionality in sentencing with the absence of material to warrant further reduction.

Court Disposition

petition partly allowed; sentence reviewed

Orders

  • The petitioner is resentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment from the date of conviction on 17th September, 2021.