High Court at Thika upheld a 20-year sentence for defilement, finding it lawful under section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act and not manifestly excessive.
The High Court at Kakamega dismissed a sentence appeal and upheld a seven-year term for possession of cannabis sativa, finding no error in sentencing discretion.
The High Court found that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion by considering the applicable law, the circumstances of the offence, and the appellant's mitigation. The sentence imposed was the statutory minimum prescribed by Section 98(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court acted on wrong principles, overlooked material factors, or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. Consequently, there was no legal basis for the appellate court to interfere with the sentence, and the appeal lacked merit.
The court found that the appellant, having pleaded guilty to the offences, was precluded by law from appealing against conviction but could challenge the sentence. The trial court had considered the circumstances, the appellant's status as a first offender, mitigation, and the pre-sentence report. The sentences imposed were within the statutory limits and not manifestly excessive or based on wrong principles. The additional order of probation supervision was lawful under the relevant statute. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion, holdin…
The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence for stealing, finding the evidence sufficient and no basis to interfere with sentence.
High Court enhanced a defilement sentence after finding the trial court imposed an illegal and too-lenient 5-year term for offending a child aged 11 years and 6 months.
Katia & another v Republic [2024] KEHC 15963 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Appeal 124 of 2019
Judge
REA Ougo
The High Court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised sentencing discretion by considering the appellants' mitigation, pre-sentence and victim reports, and relevant sentencing policy guidelines. The court held that the 20-year sentence for robbery with violence was not manifestly harsh or excessive, especially given the gravity of the offence, the violence inflicted, and the societal need for deterrence. The claim that mitigation was not considered was rejected as unfounded. The court also found that the appellants were released on bond at the subordinate court, so time spent in r…
Achochi & another v Republic [2024] KECA 1467 (KLR)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal 123 of 2019
Judges
HM Okwengu, HA Omondi, JM Ngugi
The Court of Appeal upheld a 15-year manslaughter sentence, finding the trial judge had considered mitigation and victim impact statements and made no sentencing error.
High Court appeal against a 50-year sentence for defilement of a 3-year-old child was dismissed after the court found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s discretion.
The High Court found that the trial court erred by failing to consider the appellant's young age, personal circumstances, and remorse, and by imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive compared to sentences for similar offences. The appellate court held that the time already served in custody was sufficient punishment and that a probation sentence with mandatory counselling and socio-economic empowerment training was appropriate. The sentence of life imprisonment was therefore set aside and substituted with a one-year probation order, reflecting a balanced approach to punishment, rehab…