[2019] KEHC 11094 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 11094 (KLR)

The court found that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was lawful and had been confirmed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The judge held that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances or a change in the law, there was no basis to interfere with the sentence. The ongoing debate regarding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 11094 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Lomoketilo Losabu; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kapenguria
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 3 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AT Sitati
Legal Topics
Sentence Review, Sexual Offences Act, Sentencing Guidelines
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentence Review Sexual Offences Act Sentencing Guidelines

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Lomoketilo Losabu

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was lawful and subject to review by the High Court.
  2. 2 Whether ongoing debates regarding sentencing under the Sexual Offences Act affect the applicant's sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was lawful and had been confirmed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The judge held that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances or a change in the law, there was no basis to interfere with the sentence. The ongoing debate regarding sentencing under the Sexual Offences Act was noted, but the court determined that until such debate results in a change in the law or binding precedent, the sentence must stand. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed as unmerited.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review of sentence is dismissed.