[2024] KEHC 4240 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court had properly exercised its sentencing discretion, having considered the appellant's mitigation, the age of the victim (5 years old), the conduct of the appellant, and the general circumstances of the case. The sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive in light of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4240 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Ronald Wasike; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E002 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Defilement Offences, Appellate Review of 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
Ronald Wasike
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for defilement was harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion properly.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court had properly exercised its sentencing discretion, having considered the appellant's mitigation, the age of the victim (5 years old), the conduct of the appellant, and the general circumstances of the case. The sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive in light of the gravity of the offence and the tender age of the victim. There was no basis for appellate interference with the sentence, and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against the sentence is dismissed.
- This file is hereby marked as CLOSED.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Wasike v Republic (Criminal Appeal E002 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 4240 (KLR) (11 April 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4240 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kitale
Criminal Appeal E002 of 2023
AC Mrima, J
April 11, 2024
Between
Ronald Wasike
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an appeal on sentence by Hon. C. M. Kesse, Principal Magistrate in Kitale Chief Magistrate’s Court Sexual Offence Case No. 168 of 2020 delivered on 27 th October, 2021)
Judgment
1. The Appellant herein, Ronald Wasike, was charged with the offence of Defilement contrary to Section 8(1)(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. He denied the offence and a trial was held where he was found guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
2. The Appellant lodged the instant appeal against the sentence.
3. In his submissions, the Appellant claimed that the sentence was very harsh and prayed for a lesser sentence preferably a non-custodial sentence.
4. The State opposed the appeal.
5. This Court is the first appellate Court.
6. The Court in Wanjema v. Republic (1971) EA 493 laid down the general principles upon which the first appellate Court may act on when dealing with an appeal on sentence. An appellate Court can only interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court if it is satisfied that in arriving at the sentence the trial Court did not consider a relevant fact or that it considered an irrelevant factor or that in all the circumstances of the case, the sentence is harsh and excessive. However, the appellate Court must not lose sight of the fact that in sentencing, the trial Court exercised discretion and if the discretion is exercised judicially and not capriciously, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with that discretion.
7. I have considered this matter with caution and care. The sentencing Court received the Appellant’s mitigations. The Court considered the age of the victim, the conduct of the Appellant and the general circumstances of the case.
8. Sentencing is a crucial part in the criminal process and the administration of justice. It is also discretionary. In exercising the discretion, a sentencing Court is called upon to be guided by a raft of considerations. Such are discussed at length in the Sentencing Guidelines published on 29th April, 2016 vide Gazette Notice No. 2970 by the Hon. The Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya who is also the Chairperson of the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ) and in case law including the Supreme Court in Petition No. 15 of 2015 Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR.
9. This Court does not see how the sentencing proceedings are to be impugned. The Court exercised its discretion correctly more so given the age of the victim, being 5 years old, and the injuries inflicted on her. In fact, the Appellant should consider himself very lucky given the tender age of the victim.
10. In the end, the following final orders of this Court do hereby issue: -a.The Appeal against the sentence is dismissed.b.This file is hereby marked as CLOSED.Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KITALE THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024. A. C. MRIMAJUDGEJudgment delivered virtually and in the presence of: -Ronald Wasike, the Appellant in person.Miss Kiptoo, Learned Prosecution Counsel instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent.Chemosop/Duke – Court Assistants.