Mwenda v Republic [2025] KEHC 6327 (KLR)

Mwenda v Republic (Criminal Appeal E038 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 6327 (KLR) (Crim) (21 May 2025) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6327 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nyandarua

Criminal

Criminal Appeal E038 of 2024

KW Kiarie, J

May 21, 2025

Between

Patrick Muthuri Mwenda

Appellant

and

Republic

Respondent

Judgment

1. Patrick Muthuri Mwenda, the appellant herein, was convicted of the offence of defilement of a girl contrary to section 8 (4) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006.

2. The particulars of the offence were that on diverse dates between the 18th day of April 2021and the 14th day of October 2021, at [particulars withheld] village, Kinangop subcounty, within Nyandarua County, intentionally caused his penis to penetrate the vagina of C.G.N., a child aged sixteen years.

3. The appellant was represented by Waicigo Kamau advocate. He raised the following grounds of appeal:a.The learned trial magistrate erred in law by failing to take notice that falsehoods characterised the complainants’ statements.b.The trial magistrate misdirected herself by holding that the charge had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, yet there was no documentation from the Teachers Service Commission affirming the appellant's existence or duties and responsibilities, thus arriving at the wrong decision.c.The trial court misdirected itself by failing to appreciate that the prosecution had not adhered to the law in preferring charges, as the charges were an outright usurpation of Article 47 of the Constitution, the Teachers Service Commission Act. Hence, the court arrived at the wrong decision.d.The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to appreciate the scarcity of medical evidence, especially on treatment and medical examination of the complaint, hence arriving at the wrong decision.e.The trial magistrate misdirected herself by failing to appreciate that the case was marred by inconsistencies that were prejudicial to the prosecution's case, hence arriving at the wrong decision.f.The trial magistrate ignored the appellant's written submission and the cited authorities, arriving at the wrong decision.g.The learned trial magistrate erred in law by failing to notice that there was no Teacher on Duty Occurrence book affirming that the incident occurred and no school Log book affirming that the incident occurred, hence arriving at the wrong decision.h.The trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to appreciate that there was no evidence of the appellant having visited the crime scene on the alleged date of the offence, hence arriving at the wrong decision.i.The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to exercise her discretion and placing the accused/appellant to his defence, hence arriving at the wrong decision.

4. The state opposed the appeal through Vena Odero, learned counsel.

5. This appeal is an abuse of the due process of the law. This matter is still pending at the trial court. It was held in abeyance owing to the High Court Judicial Review No. E001 of 2023. The application was dismissed on the 2nd day of April 2025. The defence of the accused has yet to be taken, and a judgment has not been rendered.

6. The appeal is struck out, and the original file is ordered to be returned to the Magistrate’s Court at Engineer for the hearing of the case to its logical conclusion.

DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA THIS 21STDAY OF MAY 2025KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE