Wilson Waweru Wanjira v Republic [2020] KEHC 5202 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KERUGOYA

CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO  60.  OF  2018

(From   Original Conviction and Sentence   in Criminal Case S.O. No.  15 of 2018 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Wanguru)

WILSON   WAWERU WANJIRA...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC.......................................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT:

This  appeal  arises  from    the  decision  or  the  proceedings  before  Wanguru   Principal  Magistrate’s  court  Criminal case No. 15 of  2018.  In  the  case  the  accused was  charged  with  the  offence  of  defilement  contrary  to  section  8 (1)  and  (2)  of  The  sexual  offences  act  No. 3  of  2006.   It was alleged that on the  13th day  of   May, 2019  at  [particulars withheld]  village  Mwea  East   Sub  county  being  Kirinyaga  County  the  accused  intentionally  caused   his  genital  organ  to  penetrate  the  genital  organ  of    MWW  a  child  aged  13  years.

In the alternative   he was charged with the  offence  of   indecent act  with  a  child  contrary  to  section 11  (1) of  the  sexual  offences  act  number  3  of  2006  and  it  was  alleged  that  on the 13th of  May, 2019  at  [particulars withheld]   village  Mwea  East  sub county  within   the  County  of  Kirinyaga  intentionally  touched  the  vagina  of  MWW   a  child  aged   13  years  with  his  penis.

The appellant had pleaded not guilty not to charges and after a  full trial   he  was convicted  on  the  charge  of  defilement  contrary  to section   8 (1) and  8 (3)   of  the sexual  offences  act  no.  3 of   2006 (to be referred to as the act) and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The appellant   was dissatisfied with both   the conviction and sentence   and  filed  this  appeal  which  raises  the  following  grounds;

1. That I   pleaded   not  guilty  to the  charge  while  taking  plea

2. That  the  learned  trial magistrate  erred  in  the  law  and  acts  by  convicting  and  sentencing  me  considering   contradictions  tendered  by  prosecution witnesses  while  testified  before  the  law  court  and  recording  of  statements.

3. Thatthe learned trial magistrate erred in law and facts  while  convicting and  sentencing  me  considering  that   no ( gene  analysis)  and seminal  analysis  conducted  to  verify  whether  any  other  individual  could  have  done  act.   Hence prejudice to me.

4. Thatthe  learned   trial  magistrate  erred  in the  law  and  fact  while  convicting   and  sentencing  me  while   failing  to consider  that  one  of  the  witness  who  had  recorded  his statement  and  ought  to be  the  key  witness and  primary   source  of  the  allegation  was  never  brought  to court by  the  prosecution  for  me  to adduce   and   challenge  hence  invoking  Section 5  (1)  (b)  of  the  Kenyan  Constitution

5. Thatthe learned trial magistrate erred in law  and  facts  by  convicting  and  sentencing  me  while  not  considering  that  the  evidence  tendered   by  the  prosecution  witnesses  was  not  water  tight  and  did   not  collaborate  to give  the  maximum   sentence  of  nature  hence  I was  greatly  affected.

6. Thatthe learned trial magistrate   erred in law and facts while convicting and sentencing me considering that I reiterated before  the  Honourable  court  that  there    existed  a personal  grudge  with  one  of  the  witnesses  who  had  recorded  his  statement  and  the  same  support  by the   issue   that  the  same  individual  never appeared  before  the  honourable  court  to  tender  his  evidence.

The   appellant prays  that  having been  dissatisfied  with   the  proceedings,  conviction  and  the  sentence    the    proceedings  be  set  aside  and  a  fresh  re-trial  be  conducted.

That following  the  grounds  of  appeal  the  court  to  consider  the  psychological  torture,  difficulties, the  hardship  he   is  undergoing  in  custody  and  quash  both the  conviction and  sentence   and  acquit  him.

The  state  opposed the  appeal  and   filed  submissions   through  Mr.  F.S.  Ashimosi  Assistant Director  of  Public   Prosecutions   dated   24th   October, 2019,  and  the  respondent   prays  that   this  appeal be  dismissed  with  costs.

This  appeal  was  disposed  off  by  way  of  written  submissions,   the  parties  filed  submissions  and   highlighted  the  same   on  28th  October, 2019.

I have considered the appeal and  all  the  submissions  filed.  This been a 1st appeal this court has a duty to analyse and to re-evaluate  afresh   all the  evidence  adduced  before  the  lower  court  and  to draw  a  conclusion  while bearing  in  mind  that  it  neither   saw  and   heard  any  of  the  witnesses  when  they  testified  and  leave  room  for  that.     This was the holding  in :  Okeno  -versus- Republic  ( 1972) EA 32 where  the  court  of  appeal   set  out  the   duty  of  the first Appellate  court  as  follows;

“ An  appellant  on  a  first  appeal  is  entitled   to expect  the  evidence  as a whole  to be submitted  to  fresh  and  exhaustive   examination  ( Pandya  -versus-  Republic  ( 1957) EA (336)  and  the  Appellate  Court  own decision  on  the  evidence.  The   first   Appellate court must itself   weigh   conflicting evidence   and draw its own conclusion, ( Shantilal  M. Ruwala  -versus-  Republic ( 1957)  E.A  570).   It is   not the function  of  a first  appellate  court  to  merely  scrutinize  the  evidence  to  see if  there   was  some  evidence  to  support  the  lower  courts  finding  and  conclusion:  it  must  make   its own  findings  and  draw   its  own  conclusions.   Only then  can  it  be  decided  whether   the  magistrate’s  findings  should be  supported  in doing  so  it  should  make  allowance  for  the  fact  that  the  trial  court  has  had the  advantage  of  hearing  and  seeing  witnesses, and  leave  room  for  that.  See  Peter’s  -vs-  Sunday  Post  ( 1958) EA 424”

This being the first  Appellant  court  it  is  a duty  to satisfy  itself  that   the   incidence  of  offence  of  defilement  or  in  the  alternative  of committing an  indecent  act   with  a  child  were  proved  beyond  any  reasonable  doubts.

In doing this I propose to first look at the Grounds of Appeal  by  the  appellant.

This grounds   can  be  summarized  as;

1. Contradictions  in  the  appellant’s case.

2. Failing  to  call  witnesses

3. Failure  by  the  trial  magistrate  to  consider  that   there  existed  a  grudge  between  him  and  one  of  the  witnesses  who  had  recorded   a  statement  and  never  appeared  before  the  court  to  tender  his  evidence.

A summary  of  the  evidence  tendered,

The evidence which was tendered  before  the  trial  court    was  by  PW1  (MW)  who  told  the court  that  the  time  she  gave  evidence  she  was  13years  old  and  in  class six 6 at  [particulars withheld]   Primary  School.

After  a  Voire  Dire   examination   the   court  found  that  her  level  of  understanding  seems  fairly  good  and  proceeded  to give  a sworn  evidence.

According to  the  witness,  on  13th  of  May, 2018 at  around  9p.m,  she  was at  home  when  the  appellant  found  her  and  told  her  to go  to his  house,  where  she  told  the  court  that  she  knew  the  accused,  she   saw  him  because  there  was  electricity  light  and  they  talked.    The appellant  enquired  where  her  dad   was  and   she  told  him  he  was  away.   The  accused  requested  her  to  accompany  him  to  his  house  and  she  agreed  because   according  to  her,  she  trusted  him  and  never  expected  or  anticipated  what  accused  would  do.

She  changed  her  mind  and  refused  to accompany  him, but  appellant   threatened  her  and  forced  her  to  accompany  him to  his  house  which was  30  feet  away.

The   appellant then  lead  her  to  his  house  and locked  her  inside.  The  appellant  warned  her  not  to scream  and  he  kill her  and  kill himself.  There  was  no  one  else  in the  house,  the  appellant  locked  the  door,  removed  her  clothes  which  she  was wearing,  that  is  a  skirt,  a blouse  and  a  pant.

The appellant  then  did  bad  things  to  her,  and  when she  wanted  to scream  he  removed a  knife  on  her,  he  removed  his t-  shirt and  trouser  and   then  lay  on  her  on  a  mattress  using  his  body   and  penetrated  her.    She  said   she  felt  pain,  and  after  that  she  could  not  leave  the  house  as  it  was at  night.

Later at 1a.m   when she was  still in  the  house  of  appellant   her dad   went  there.   There  were  other  people  who  had come  with  her  father   who told  the  appellant  to  open  the house,  the  appellant  refused.   The  complainant’s  dad  entered  the  house  through  a  window   by  then  she  was  under  the   mattress,  as  the  appellant  had   covered   her  with  it  and  threatened   her.

Her  dad ( PW2) NW  removed  the  mattress  and saw  her.   He  also  opened  the door  and  they  went  outside.    The  appellant  was  tied   and  was  taken  to  the    In  charge  who   told  them to  proceed  to  Wanguru police station,  and   she  was  taken  to  Difather’s  hospital  by  her  dad  and  a  police  officer.

On  being  examined  by   Dr.  Kenneth  Munyi  a  medical  officer based at  Kerugoya  hospital,  it was  found  that  the  complainant   M.W.W  was   aged  13 years,  at  the  time  of  examination  no  clothing was  available  she  alleged  to have been  defiled  by  a  person  known  to  her.  She  was  in good  general  condition.  There  was  inflamed  area  over  the  chest,  which  was  tender  on  touching.  Both  knees  had  bruises  which  were  tender  to touch.  The age  of  the  injuries   was  between   1  to 4  days.  Blunt weapon was used and  the  degree  of  injuries  was  harm.

On  the  genitalia,

No  laceration  was  noted  on  Labia  Majora  and  Minora.

The vaginal  wall and  the  vagina were  reddened   ( inflamed).

The hymen was freshly raptured.

There was  whitish   vaginal  discharge

No pus  cells   seen,  sperms  seen

Deposits of  spermatozoa   on urine

Negative for H.I.V, Syphillis and   pregnancy.

Put on medication, PEP (Post exposure  Propilaxis)  antibiotics  and  pain  killers.

He found that there was evidence of defilement,  the  patient  had  been seen   at  Difathers  Health  center where  necessary  tests  were  done.

PW2 was NW who was the complainants father.  He told the court that the   complainant MW  is her daughter who at the time was aged 13 years, as she was born on 18th July, 2005 as  per  the  birth  certificate  which  was  produced  as  P. Exhibit. 1.   According to PW2 he knew the accused by name Waweru  they  come  from the  same  village and   he  was  his  friend, and  he  used  to give  him  work  on his  compound.

On the material day that is 13th May, 2018 at 2a.m he came home after   picking miraa, his wife informed him  that the  complainant  was  missing  and  he  started  looking  for  her.  After giving up, and   was considering the next action, the appellant  went to his house  and  stayed  for  a while  then  left.    It is then that two people came and called him   asking him where   the complainant was, and upon telling  them  that  he  was  looking  for  her,  they  told  him that  the  child  was  in  the house  of   Budi.  That is the name the appellant  is known with in the village.

He called   his  wife  and  told   him to  look  for  two  women  while  he  called nyumba  kumi  official  and  they  proceeded  to  the  house  of  appellant  and  told  him  to  open.  He  entered  the   house of  appellant  through  the  window  and  he  saw  a  mattress,  which  the  appellant  had  used  to cover  the  complainant  with.  He  was  using  a  torch and  he  touched  the  complainant’s  leg  and  told  her  to come out.

The  appellant  started  struggling  with   him  as  he  wanted  to  run away.  The  complainant   opened  the  door  and  the  others’  entered.   He cautioned  them not  to   assault  the  appellant,  he  then  alerted  the  In charge  of  the  village, who  directed  him to  take  the  complainant  to  the  Police  Station and  he  proceeded  to  Wanguru  Police  Station,  where  they   reported   they  were  issued  with  a  P3  and  took the   complainant  to  Difathers  hospital   and  then  Kibibi.

Pw3 (BW)  is  the  complainant’s  mother  and  she  told  the  court  that  the   appellant   comes  from  the  village  and   is  known  by  the  name  Budi and  used  to  frequent  his  home.

On  the  material  day,  she  had  gone  to  the  market  and  returned  home  at  around  8p.m  and  found  her  husband   and  enquired   where  her  daughter  was.

The  husband  ( PW2)  informed  her  that,  the  complainant  was  at  her grandmother’s  place.  He  cooked  and  later  at  1a.m,  her  husband  woke  her  up  and  told  her  that    the  complainant  had  been  found  in  the  house  of  the appellant.  They  proceeded  to  the house  of  the  appellant  with  other  people.   The  appellant  refused  to  open  and   PW2  kicked  the  window  and  entered.    She  stood  at  the  window, and  in  aid  of  a  touch  he  saw  Budi  who  was covering  the  complainant  with a  mattress.  He  opened  the  door, and then  called  Nyumba  kumi  official  and  the   In charge  of  the  village.

In cross - examination  she  stated  that  she  never  reported  a  missing  person, as  she  had  been assured  that  she   was at  her grandmother’s  place  where  she  usually  sleeps.

APC Geoffrey Muthamia   (PW4)  who  was  an  Administration  police  constable  based  at  Tongonye  AP  Post  on  14th  of  May, 2018   at  around  5a.m.  He was  on duty   when  me members  of  the  public  and   nyumba  kumi  official  took  the  appellant  to  the  police  post  together  with  the  parents  of  the  complainant   in this  case.    He  booked  a report  from the  father   of  child   WW  that  he  had  found  her  daughter   sleeping  in  the  house  of appellant  and  raised  the  alarm  and  rescued  the  complainant  from  the  house  of  the appellant.   He accompanied the appellant   and  her  parents  to  Difathers’s  dispensary, and  after  receiving  the  report  from  the  hospital,  he  escorted  the appellant  to  Wanguru Police  Station, and   the    complainant  was  referred  to  hospital  for   treatment.

PW5 Doctor  Kennedy  Munyi  who  examined  the  complainant  and  filled  the  P3  form.

Faith  Maloba  ( PW6)  who  was  a  police  constable  attached  to  Wanguru  Police  station  was  the  investigating  officer  in  the  case,  and  she told  the  court  that  on 14th  May, 2018   she  was assigned  this case  to  investigate,  she  conducted  investigations  and  found  that  the   complainant  was  heading  home  from  the  grandmother’s  place  when  the  appellant   called  her   and   they  proceeded  to  his   house where  he  locked  the house  and   had  penetrative  sex  with  her.

Later   she  was  rescued  by  her  parents,    who  also  managed  to  arrest  the  appellant,   she  referred  her  to  hospital  for  treatment,  a  P3  form was  filled  an d the   Doctor  confirmed  that  defilement had  taken  place  and  she   then  charged  the  appellant.

The appellant was put on his defence and gave unsworn statement,  his  defence  was  that  it  is  the   wife  of   Julius   who  went  with  the  child  to  his  house  and started  screaming  and  he  was  arrested and  charged.

Based on that evidence the appellant was convicted and sentenced as earlier stated.

The appellants argued   ground   2 and 5 of the appeal  together  and   he  submits  contradiction  of  evidence  tendered  by the  prosecution  and  has  pointed  the  evidence  of  PW1  and   PW2.    I have considered the submissions,  I  find  that  there  are  no material  contradiction  in  the  evidence  of  PW1  and   PW2.

The minor  contradictions  pointed  out  have   not  shaken  the  prosecution  case,  and  minor   contradictions   are  ignored.  Not all contradictions   may lead  to the  weakening  of  the  prosecution’s  case.   Contradictions will only be immaterial if they raise doubts in the evidence of the witnesses.

The Court of Appeal in the case of; ERIC ONYANGO   ODENG –VERSUS- REPUBLIC (2014) eklr   while dealing with the issue of contradictions and inconsistencies, stated   as follows;

“nor do we think much turns on the  alleged  contradictions   and  the  time  of   the commission  of  the  offence.   The trial court after hearing all the evidence,  accepted  that  the  offence  was  committed  about  7p.m  in  accordance  with  the  evidence  of  PW2  as  noted  by  the  Ugandan  Court  of  Appeal  in   Twehagane Alfred  -versus  -  Uganda   ( Cr. Appeal No. 139   of  2001)  2003 UGCA  6.   It is not every contradiction that warrant   rejection of evidence.

As  the  court  put  it: “   in regard  to  contradiction  in  the   prosecution  case the  law  has  set  out  in  numerous  authorities  is that  grave  contradictions  unless  satisfactorily  explained  will usually  but  not  necessary  lead  to  the  evidence  of  a  witness been  rejected.     The court will ignore   minor contradictions unless   the court  thinks  that  they  point  to deliberate  and  truthfulness  or  if  they  do  not  affect  the  main  substance of  the  prosecutions’  case.”

Theappellant has said that there were contradictions on   the time,   PW1  has pointed  out  the  contradictions  which  I find  are  not  material  and  will not  affect  the  credibility  of  witnesses,  there  is  nothing  to show  that  the  witnesses   were  deliberately   telling  untruths.    The issue of   contradictions  was  not  raised  before  the  trial magistrate  and  there  was  no  determination on  alleged  contradictions.

I  find  that   there    were  no   contradictions  which were  casted  doubt  in  the  prosecution’s  case.     Minor contradictions are ignored and the ground is without   merit.

The  appellants’  with  Ground   number  111  raised  the  issue  that  there  was  failure  to consider  by the trial magistrate  the  absence  seminal /  gene  analysis  of  the  accused.

He  submitted  that  in   criminal  trials  the  prosecution  has  the burden  of  proof, being  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the   accused  person  is  responsible  for  the  offence  charged,  and  we  therefore  submit that  it  is desirable  to  connect  the  accused   with   the    offence  in question   failing  which   the  court  must  return  a  no  guilty  verdict.

In this case the  offence  being  defilement  the  seminal   analysis  of  the  accused  should have  been  conducted  to  prove  that  it  was  the  accused  who  defiled   the  complainant.   However, no such  medical  test  was  done  in  respect  of  the  accused  and hence   the   offence  was  not  proved  beyond  any reasonable  doubt.

I have considered the  ground  and  I find  that;   in  a  charge  of  defilement  what  is supposed  to be  proved  is  evidence  of  penetration.

Seminal analyzes   would  be  necessary  where  there  is   a  dispute  as  to who   has  committed  the offence.   In this  case   there  was  overwhelming  evidence  from  the  complainant  herself   that  it  is  the  appellant  who  she  knew  before   that defiled  her.   A fact that is collaborated by the   testimony of  PW2  and  PW3  who  confirmed  before  the  trial court  that   they  rescued  the  complainant  from  the  house  of  the  appellant  in  the  wee  hours  of the  night.

Furthermore, this case relates to the Commission of a Sexual offence under the Evidence Act   the court can convict with the evidence of the complainant.   This is provided under Section   124 of the Evidence Act Cap 80 Laws of Kenya.

It provides;

“Notwithstanding the provisions of  Section  19  of  the  Oaths  and  Statutory  Declarations  Act ( Cap  15),  where  the  evidence  of  the  alleged  victim  is   admitted  in  accordance  with  that  section  on behalf of  the  prosecution  in  proceedings  against  any  person  for  an  offence,  the  accused  shall  not  be liable  to be  convicted  on such  evidence  unless  it  is  corroborated by  other  material  evidence  in support   thereof  implicating him:

Provided that where in a criminal case   involving a sexual  offence  the   only  evidence  is  that  of  the  alleged  victim  of  the  offence,  the  court  shall  receive  the  evidence  of  the  alleged  victim  and  proceed  to convict   the accused  person if, for  reasons  to be  recorded  in the  proceedings,  the  court  is  satisfied  that  the   alleged  victim  is  telling  the  truth.”

The complainant   testified that the appellant penetrated  her,  the   Judgment  of  the  trial  magistrate  at  page  42,  line  11  stated:

“  I  noted  the  demeanor  of  PW1  and to  me  she  appeared  credible  and  was  consistent  on  how   accused  approached   and  requested  her  company   to  his  house.   I am  not  convinced  that  PW1  was  brought to  the  scene  by  Julius’s  wife  who  started screaming.

Pw1  has  convinced  me  she  was  locked  inside  the  house,  and this  evidence  has  been  corroborated  by  PW2  and  PW3,    PW1  claims  she w as  rescued from  accused house  and  PW2  and   PW3  have  collaborated  her evidence.   I  have  not  discerned  any  underlying  issues  between  PW2  and  PW3. I  therefore   find   accused   had  penetrative  sex  with  Pw1. ”

The trial magistrate made a finding  of  fact  on  the  testimony  of    the  complainant  that she  was  a  credible  witness  and  it  is  noted  from  the  record  that,    where  she  gave  evidence  after  a  Voire  dire  examination  and  the  trial  magistrate  held  that  she  could  understand  the  proceedings  and  gave  evidence  on   oath.

From the finding by the trial magistrate, which   I  find  was  based  on  cogent  evidence,  the  identity  of  the perpetrator  was  not  in  dispute.

The proof of the identity   of   the   perpetrator   is one of the  ingredients  of  the offences  of   defilement.  In this case   from the evidence tendered before the   trial magistrate   there was   direct evidence to prove the identity of  the  perpetrator.

There was also cogent  evidence  which  proved  that  there  was  evidence  of  defilement  as  testified    by   PW5.

Medical evidence  corroborated   the   evidence  of  the  complainant, in that  her  hymen  was  freshly  broken,  there  was  presence of  spermatozoa  and  redding  of  the  vaginal   wall.

The  age  of  the  complainant  was also  proved  in  the  production  of  the   birth  certificate  Exhibit. 1.

I find that  there  was  sufficient  evidence  on  record  to  prove  the  identity  of   the  perpetrator   and  therefore  it   was  immaterial  that  the  seminal  fluids  of  the  appellant   were  not  tested  and  penetration  is  proved  by  Medical  evidence  and  in this  case  there  was  sufficient  medical   evidence  which  proved  that  the  complainant  was  defiled.

I find  that   his ground  is  without  merit.

ON  Ground  IV;  the  appellant  faults  the trial court  for  failure  to  present  key  witnesses  by  the  prosecution.

I  have  considered  this    application  and  I  reiterate  and   the  offences  of   this  nature  the  court  can  rely  on  the  evidence  of  the  complainant  without    requirement   of  corroboration  by   a   witness  save  for  medical   evidence  in  this  case  the   and  the proviso   of   Section  124  of  Evidence  Act  and  the   medical  evidence  must  be borne  in mind  as  Section  143  of   the  Evidence  Act  which  provides  that  in  the  absence  of  any  requirement   by  a provision   of  law   no  particular  number  of  witnesses  shall be required   for   the  prove   of  any  fact.

Failure  to  call the  alleged  witnesses,  is  immaterial as  there  was  no  requirement  under  the   law  to  call the  witnesses.  The evidence  of   Pw1, Pw2  and  PW3  was  found  to  be  trustworthy  by  the  trial  court  who  found  that   they   had  no issue  with  the  appellant.

From the evidence of   Pw6  who  was  the  investigating  officer   at  Page  25  of  the  record  from line  17   the  investigating  officer stated  that  she  decided  to rely  on evidence  of  minor  and  complainant’s  parent.  Maina refused to testify and   she later learnt that  he  is   a  friend  of  the  accused.

The evidence of the witness in the circumstances  was  of  no  probative  value.

The evidence  tendered  by  the  witnesses  who  testified  was sufficient.

GROUND  NO. SIX     The  accused  alleges  that   the  trial  magistrate  failed  to  consider  whether   there  was  a grudge  between  the  accused  and  one  of  the  witnesses   namely  Maina.    I need not  say  much  on  this  ground  as  I  have  already   addressed  the  issue  of  witnesses.   This ground is without  merit,  and   said  Julius  Maina  was  not  called  as  a  witness.

The trial magistrate considered   that the defence of the appellant and the court   found that  there  was  no  nexus  between   PW1,  PW2  and    Maina.

From  the  evidence   of  PW2  she  could  not  discern  any  acrimony   because  PW2  considered  the  accused  as  his  friend, and  on  the  material date  had  spent  time  with  him.

The trial magistrate considered  the  issue   and   arrived  at  a  proper  finding   based  on the  evidence  which  was  tendered  before  her.

Having considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution   I find that the  evidence  tendered  against  the  appellant  was  overwhelming  and  the  trial  magistrate  arrived  at   an  evitable   conclusion  which  is  that  of  guilt   of  the  appellant.

At the time of hearing of   his appeal the counsel for the appellant Mr.  Warutere addressed the court on the   issue of mandatory sentence and he submitted  that  the   court  should  not  uphold  the  sentence  as  it  is  unconstitutional    in  view  of  the  decision   of  the  Supreme  Court  in   The  Case  of;   Francis  Karioko  Muruatetu  -verus-   Republic ( 2016)  Eklr.

He submits  that he be  given  an  opportunity  to  mitigate and  he  further prays  that  the  file  be  sent to  the lower  court  for  hearing  on  the  issue  of   sentence.

In response Mr.  Ashimosi for the respondent submitted that   he had looked at the proceedings from page  45  of  the  record  and  it shows  that  the  appellant  was  given   an  opportunity  to  mitigate  and  this   is  not  therefore  a  case  that  can  be  referred  back  to  the  trial  magistrate. Supreme court in the case of   Muruatetu dealt with the mandatory nature of the sentence.

That  life  imprisonment under  the sexual  offences  act  borders  on   the    so  called  minimum   and   mandatory  maximum.

That  the  Supreme  court  steered  clear  of   making   a decision   on  that   as  it  affects   various  other   Sections.    Unless there is a Constitutional   Petition to declare it unconstitutional.  The court cannot declare it.

I have considered the issue page 45 of the record shows that   the appellant was given an opportunity to   make mitigation and he  proceeded  to  give  his   mitigation.

The trial magistrate considered the mitigation but while sentencing the appellant  noted  that    her  hands  are  tied  and  sentenced  the  accused  to  life  imprisonment.    In the case of; Muruwatetu  the   court stated  that  for  avoidance  of  doubt  the   sentence  re-hearing   we  have  allowed  applies  only  for the  two  petitioners   herein.  In the  meantime   the  existing  or  intending   petitioners  with  similar  cases    ought  not  to  approach  the   supreme  court  directly  or  await   appropriate  guidelines  for  the  disposal  of  the  same.

The Attorney   General is directed  to  urgently    set  out  a frame work  to   deal with    sentence  re-hearing of  cases  relating  to  the  mandatory  nature  of  the  death  sentence,  which  is  similar  to that  of the  petitioner  in  this  case  and  so  the  Supreme  court  judgment  seems  to   suggest   that  save for  Muruwateu   and  his  co-petitioners  all other   existing   petitioners  with  similar  cases  will have to  wait  the   outcome  of  the  taskforce.  However,  the  court  of  appeal  in  the  case  of;  William  Ongugu  Kitini  -vrs- Republic  ( 2018)  eklr  expressed  itself  as  follows;

The  decision  of  the  supreme  court  only  discourage  persons  from  filing  petitions  to  the  supreme  court  but  the  decision  does not  prohibit  court  below  it from  ordering   sentence   rehearing  in  a  matter  pending  before  this  court.   By   Article 163 (7)   of the  Constitution   the  decision  of  the  Supreme  court  has  immediate  and  bidding effects  on  all other  courts.

The decision of the supreme court  opened  the  door  for review  of  death  sentences  even  in finalized  cases  and   in the  case  of;   Michael  Kithewa Liechena  & Another  -versus- Republic ( 2018)  eKLR  stated  that   by  re-sentencing     the  court   would  be  merely  enforcing   and granting  relief    for  what  is   in  effect  a  violation  caused  by  the imposition  of  the  mandatory  death  sentence.

It should be noted that in this cases the  court  was  dealing   with the  mandatory  nature  of  the  death  sentence.

In the case of; Abdalla  Kahaso  Kobe  -versus-  Director  of  Public  prosecution  ( 2020) eklr   where  the  trial  magistrate  was  considering  a  petition   filed   a   petitioner   who  was  convicted   under   section  8 (4)  of  the  Sexual  offences  act  and  challenging   the  minimum  sentence  of   15  years  imposed  on  him.   The  court stated  as  follows;-

“By  prescribing  mandatory  sentences  the  act  takes  away  a courts  discretion  to  impose  a sentence   it  considers  inappropriate,   however    sentencing   trends  in defilement  matters  in a case  of   transition  there  had been  a marked  paradigm   shift  by  the  courts  in  recent  years   on  treatment in sentencing for  this  kinds of  crimes  with  fervent  calls  for  consideration  of  each  case  by   its  own  circumstances.”

I  have considered  this  issue   and  I  find  that   the  sexual  offences  act  has  provided    for  severe  sentences  to  send  a  strong message  to  the  offenders  to  discourage  the  offence.   In this  case   Section  8 (1) (3)  of  The  Sexual  offences  act   provides  that;

“  a  person  who  commits  an  acts  which  causes  penetration with  a child  is  guilty  of  an  offence  termed  defilement,

a  person   who  commits  an  offence  of  defilement   with a  child  between  the  age  12  and  15  years  is  liable  upon conviction  for  imprisonment  for  a  term  of  not  less  than  20  years.”

The trial  magistrate  imposed  a  sentence  of  life  imprisonment  and  therefore  the  sentence   was  wrong   in  view  of  the  sentence  provided  under  the  sections  under  which  the  appellant  was  charged  and  in the circumstances   there  is  no provision  to  refer  the  appellant  to  the  lower  court  for  re-sentencing.

It  is  for  this  court  to consider  the  issue  raised  on  the  sentence  and  deal  with  it  as  the   Appellate  court  in  which  case  I  would  set  aside  the    sentence  of  life  imprisonment  and  substitute  it  with   a  sentence  of     20  years  imprisonment.

The sentence be computed   from the date   of his  arrest  on  14th May, 2018  as  provided    under  section  333  of  Criminal  procedure  code  as  he  had  not been  released on  bond  and  bail.

The upshot   is that   the appeal on the sentence succeeds.  The appeal lacks  merit and is dismissed.

Dated,  signed  at  Kerugoya   this 29th day  of May 2020.

L.W. GITARI

JUDGE