Akuta v Republic [2025] KEHC 6654 (KLR)

Akuta v Republic (Criminal Petition E050 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 6654 (KLR) (23 May 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6654 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Eldoret

Criminal Petition E050 of 2023

RN Nyakundi, J

May 23, 2025

Between

Peter Akuta

Petitioner

and

Republic

Respondent

Ruling

1. Before this court is an application dated 3rd day of August 2023 seeking the following orders:i.That the petitioner is seeking for sentence review on accordance to article 50(2) (p) (q) of the constitution of Kenya 2010. ii.That the prayers are on sentence onlyiii.That I beg to be present during hearing thereofFurther it is supported by an affidavit sworn by the said Peter Akuta which states as follows:i.That That I am a Kenyan citizen male adult of sound mind hence competent to swear this affidavitii.That I was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with 8(3) of the SOA No.3 of 2006iii.That I was convicted and sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonmentiv.That I appealed to the high court of Kenya at Eldoret vide CR.APPL. No. 90/2017 which was consequently dismissedv.That I now petition the high court of Kenya at Eldoret where my prayers are on sentence onlyvi.That I am remorseful, repentant, reformed and rehabilitated as I have learned hard lessons while in custody and now beg for leniencyvii.That I do beg that I be accorded to benefit with the provision of article 50(2) (q) of the constitution of Kenya 2010viii.That it’s my humble request that I be granted a fair opportunity to argue my petitionix.That all I have deboned herein is true to the best of knowledge information and belief

2. This application seems to follow within the provisions of Art 50 (6) (A) & (B) of the constitution which states as follows in pare materia that a person has a right to petition the High Court for a new trial if the person’s Appeal if any has been dismissed by the highest court to which the person is entitled to Appeal or the persons did not Appeal within the time allowed for appeal and new compelling evidence has become available.

3. The sentencing regime in our level of courts is ordained within the guidelines of the persuasive authority in S v Toms: S v Bruce1990 2SA 802 (A) in which the court observed as follows: “ The first principle is that the infliction of punishment is pre-eminently a matter for the discretion of the trial court. The fact that court should, as far as possible, have an unfettered discretion in relation to sentence is a cherished principle which call for constant recognition. Such discretion permits of balanced and fair sentencing which is a hallmark of enlightened criminal justice. The second and somewhat related principle, is that of the individualization of punishment, which requires proper consideration of the individual circumstances of each accused person. This principle too is firmly entrenched in our law.

4. The specified sentences, as affirmed by the High Court should not be departed from lightly and for flimsy reasons or sympathy as it is shown in the Affidavit by the Applicant. I find no compelling reasons to review the sentence. The motion is dismissed under Section 382 of the CPC.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY 2025. ……………………………………R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE