https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8752

Obura v Republic (Criminal Petition E010 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8752 (KLR) (22 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8752 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Petition E010 of 2025 DR Kavedza, J June 22, 2026 Between Lucas Obura Petitioner and Republic Respondent Judgment 1.The petitioner was charged, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Criminal Case No. 4089 of 2012 for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006. His appeal to the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2012 was dismissed and the life sentence was affirmed. 2.The Petitioner has approached this Court by way of constitutional petition seeking resentencing. He contends that the mandatory life sentence prescribed under section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional. He further invokes sections 216 and 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code, urging the Court to reconsider mitigation factors and substitute the sentence with a definite term of imprisonment. 3.The issue for determination is whether the life sentence imposed upon the Petitioner is unconstitutional in light of binding jurisprudence from the Supreme Court on mandatory and minimum sentences. 4.The doctrine of stare decisis is settled. Article 163(7) of the Constitution provides that all courts, other than the Supreme Court, are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court. This principle ensures certainty, consistency and uniformity in the administration of justice, and it admits of no departure by this Court from a binding pronouncement of the apex Court. 5.In Republic v Joshua Gichuki Mwangi [2024] KESC 34 (Petition No. E018 of 2023), the Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of minimum and mandatory sentences under the Sexual Offences Act. The Court reaffirmed that its earlier decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR was confined to the mandatory death sentence under section 204 of the Penal Code and did not extend to invalidate statutory minimum or mandatory sentences in other legislation. The Court further underscored that Parliament retains the constitutional mandate to prescribe penalties, including mandatory or minimum terms, subject only to compliance with the Bill of Rights. 6.The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Joshua Gichuki Mwangi (supra) is binding upon this Court and conclusively determines the issue raised by the Petitioner. It follows that a challenge to the constitutionality of the mandatory sentence under section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act cannot be sustained before this Court. 7.The record of the trial court shows that the sentencing court considered the Petitioner’s mitigation, including his status as a first offender, before imposing the sentence prescribed by law. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the court failed to consider relevant factors or acted in error of principle. 8.It is further noted that the Petitioner exercised his right of appeal, and both conviction and sentence were subjected to appellate scrutiny. No illegality or procedural irregularity has been demonstrated that would warrant interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. 9.In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Petition discloses no constitutional violation, illegality, or miscarriage of justice. The challenge to the sentence is therefore without merit and cannot be sustained. 10.Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed in its entirety.Orders accordingly. JUDGEMENT DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Petitioner PresentMutuma for the RespondentKarimi Court Assistant.