https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10079

Muriuki v Prosecution (Criminal Revision E169 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10079 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10079 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kerugoya Criminal Revision E169 of 2024 EM Muriithi, J July 9, 2026 Between Peterson Kinyua Muriuki Applicant and Prosecution Respondent Ruling 1.By revision application dated 17/5/2024 and Submissions dated 12/3/2026, the applicant seeks orders as follows: -a.This court be pleased to grant my application for a sentence revision downwards, non-custodial sentence or by deeming the already served sufficient.b.That the remaining part of my sentence be served through an appropriate judicial arrangement to facilitate my health conditions which is much wanting, rehabilitation, reintegration into society and continued support of my family.c.That this court be pleased to invoke section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2.The DPP did not file submissions. 3.The applicant was convicted for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) and (3) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years on 22/6/2016. His appeals to both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were unsuccessful. 4.In sentencing the applicant, the trial court is not shown to have considered any period of pre-trial detention in terms of Section 333(2) Proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code:“Court: The section of Law under which the accused is charged provides for a mandatory minimum sentence. My hands are tied. The accused is sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Right of Appeal 14 days. Security be released to the surety”M. Kivuti, R.M.22.6.2026” 5.In dismissing the second appeal, the Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the sentence as shown in paragraphs 36-9 of the Judgment of 12/4/2024, as follows:“36.On sentence, it was confirmed by the production of PWl's birth certificate that she was 15 years old at the time the offence was committed.37.Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act provides as follows:"8(3)A person who commits an offence of defilement with child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment/or a term of not: less than twenty years. "38.Accordingly, we find that the sentence meted out on the appellant by the rial court and upheld by the 1st appellate court was lawful.39.Accordingly, we fmd no basis to interfere with the findings of the trial court as upheld by the High Court. The upshot is that the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed in its entirety.” 6.In the trilogy of cases of Mwangi (Republic v Mwangi; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) & 3 others (Amicus Curiae) [2024] KESC 34 (KLR) ), Manyeso (Republic v Manyeso [2025] KESC 16 (KLR)) and Ayako (Republic v Ayako [2025] KESC 20 (KLR)), the Supreme Court has guided that the courts have no authority to interfere with mandatory minimum sentences in the Sexual Offences Act. See paragraph 45 of Ayako decision, as follows:“45.In the Republic v Mwangi Case, this court held that, whilst sentencing is an exercise of judicial discretion, Parliament sets the parameters for sentencing for each crime in statute. We stated as follows:66.We must also reaffirm that, although sentencing is an exercise of judicial discretion, it is Parliament and not the Judiciary that sets the parameters of sentencing for each crime in statute. As such, striking down a sentence provided for in Statute, must be based not only on evidence and sound legal principles but on an in-depth consideration of public interest and the principles of public law that informed the making of that specific law. A judicial decision of that nature cannot be based on private opinions, sentiments, sympathy or benevolence. It ought not to be arbitrary, whimsical or capricious. However, where a sentence is set in Statute, the Legislature has already determined the course, unless it is declared unconstitutional, based on sound principles and clear guidelines, upon which the Legislature should then act. Suffice to say, where Parliament enacts legislation, the Judicial arm should adjudicate disputes based on the provisions of the law. However, in the special circumstances of a declaration of unconstitutionality, the process is reversed”.” 7.As regards, pre-trial detention period, it is established from the trial court file that the accused was arraigned before the Baricho PM’s Court on 18/3/15 upon arrest on 17/3/2015. He was released on bond on 20/4/2015, and he remained so on bond until 22/6/2016 when upon sentence, the security was released to the surety. 8.Consequently, the applicant was in custody before bail for a period of thirty one (31) days. This period should have been taken into account. Orders 9.Consequently, while declining the application for revision of sentence on the guidance of the Supreme Court against review of mandatory minimum sentences in sexual offences, the Court finds the statutory requirement of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code must be enforced by a direction that the applicant’s sentence of imprisonment for twenty (20) years shall take into account the pre-trial detention of thirty one (31) days before the accused was released on bail. 10.File closed.Order accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026.EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAppearances:Applicant in person.Mr. Mwangi for Respondent.