[2014] KEHC 4642 (KLR)
The court held that since the appellant was sentenced to the minimum term of imprisonment prescribed under section 6(a) of the Sexual Offences Act, it had no discretion to reduce the sentence further. The law mandates a minimum sentence of five years for the offence, and the court is bound by this statutory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4642 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Silas Mutembei Mukindia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 33 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- AM Cockar
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Minimum Sentence, Appeal on Sentence
- 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
Silas Mutembei Mukindia
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant under section 6(a) of the Sexual Offences Act can be reduced below the statutory minimum.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the appellant was sentenced to the minimum term of imprisonment prescribed under section 6(a) of the Sexual Offences Act, it had no discretion to reduce the sentence further. The law mandates a minimum sentence of five years for the offence, and the court is bound by this statutory requirement. The appellant's personal circumstances, while sympathetic, do not provide a legal basis for reducing the sentence below the minimum set by statute. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed as lacking merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2013
LESIIT, J
SILAS MUTEMBEI MUKINDIA..........................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.......................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Appellant SILAS MUTEMBEI MUKINDIA is charged with causing an indecent act contrary to section 6(a) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence he filed this appeal.
The Appellant has withdrawn his appeal against the conviction and urged that he is not pursing same. He urged that he was challenging the sentence. The Appellant submitted that he was newly married when he was sentenced for this offence. He urged that while in prison he underwent a Tailoring Course Grade 1 and II. He also urged that he has contracted T.B. and ulcers since his incarceration. He urged the court to reduce his sentence.
The state was represented by Mr. Jalson Makori. The learned Prosecution Counsel did not oppose the appeal but left the matter for the court to decide.
The Appellant wishes to challenge his sentence only. He was convicted of an offence under section 6(a) of the Sexual Offences Act (SOA). A person convicted of an offence under that section is liable to imprisonment for a period not less than five years.
The Appellant was sentenced to the minimum sentence under Section 6(a) of the SOA. Being the minimum, the sentence cannot be varied to bring down the period of sentence from the one ordered by the court. In the circumstances the Appellants appeal against sentence has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2014
LESIIT J
JUDGE