The High Court declined to revise a 10-year defilement sentence and refused to order it concurrent with a separate 2-year sentence, dismissing the application.
The court held that the applicant failed to present any new or compelling evidence that was not available at the time of trial or appeal. The sentence of life imprisonment for defilement was confirmed by both the trial and appellate courts, and there was no demonstration of error in principle, manifest excessiveness, or injustice in the sentence imposed. The court reiterated that the threshold for sentence review under Article 50(6) of the Constitution and sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires new and compelling evidence or a clear miscarriage of justice, neither of whi…
The High Court at Garsen dismissed an application to revise a 20-year defilement sentence and place the remaining term on probation, finding no basis for revision under section 362.
The High Court at Garsen dismissed an application to review a 40-year defilement sentence, holding that the mandatory sentence under the Sexual Offences Act was lawful.
The court found that the applicant failed to provide satisfactory or sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay of nearly three years in seeking leave to appeal out of time. The applicant did not demonstrate any efforts to request the judgment or proceedings, nor did he annex any evidence of such requests or a draft petition of appeal. The court held that financial constraints were not a valid excuse, as criminal appeals and proceedings are provided at no cost. Applying the principles from Nicholas Kiptoo arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 Others, the court concluded that the applicant did not meet…
The High Court at Thika struck out a sentence-review application, holding it lacked jurisdiction after the applicant’s appeal had already been determined by another High Court judge.
The High Court deferred final ruling on a sentence revision application for defilement, ordering a further probation report before determining whether to alter the sentence.
The court held that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for sentence revision under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to correcting errors of law, jurisdictional defects, or perverse findings by the subordinate court. The applicant's arguments regarding mitigation, constitutional rights, and the severity of the sentence did not demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, irregularity, or incorrectness in the sentencing order. The court emphasized that it cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact un…