1. The Appellant, Daniel Kitu Mulatya, was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006. The particulars of the charge were that on the 17th January 2022, the Appellant intentionally caused his genital organ to penetrate the genital organ of L.N., a child aged seventeen years.
2. In the alternative, the Appellant was charged with committing an indecent act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006 by touching the vagina of L.N., a child aged seventeen years.
3. The prosecution called four witnesses in support of its case. PW1, the complainant, L.N., stated that she was born on 09th May 2004. She recalled that on 17th January 2022, while on her way home from school, she met the Appellant at a river. He got hold of her and took her to his house. He locked the door from inside, forced her onto a bed, removed her school uniform and his clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. He had sexual intercourse with her three times that night. The same night, at about 10.00 p.m., her brother, Dennis Kimanzi, went to the Appellant’s house and, upon finding the complainant there, informed his mother. Her mother and Daniel arrested both the complainant and the Appellant and escorted them to the Chief’s office and then to the police station.PW2, the complainant’s mother, testified that the complainant left home for school on 17th January 2022 but did not return. She searched for her with the assistance of her son, Dennis. Dennis found the complainant at the Appellant’s house and alerted PW2. She went there and found the Appellant and the complainant together. She thereafter reported the matter to the police.
4. PW2, Esther Munanie Mwanzia, the complainant’s mother, testified that on 17th January 2022, at about 8.30 a.m., the complainant’s teacher, Mr. Kilonzo, called her and informed her that Lucy had not reported to school. She commenced a search for her and, at about 10.00 a.m., found her at the Appellant’s house. Her son, Dennis, had assisted her in the search and was present when they found the Appellant and the complainant in the house. When she questioned them, they remained silent. The Chief thereafter came and entered the house.PW2 stated that they subsequently made a report at Mwingi Police Station and the complainant was escorted to Mwingi Level IV Hospital for examination. The doctor informed her that the complainant had been defiled. She stated that she had no differences or quarrels with the Appellant.
5. PW3, Dr. Curtis Alice, a medical officer at Mwingi Level 4 Hospital, testified that he examined the complainant, Lucy Ndanu, aged 17 years, on 19th January 2022. She had initially been examined at the hospital on 18th January 2022 after alleging that she had been defiled. Upon examination, he found that her hymen was ruptured, the vaginal walls had lacerations and there was bloody vaginal discharge. He completed the P3 form dated 19th January 2022, which he produced in evidence as PExh. 2.
6. PW4, Police Constable Scholastica Kyambi, the investigating officer, testified that the Appellant and the complainant were brought to Mwingi Police Station on 18th January 2022. She recorded their statements, arranged for the complainant to undergo medical examination and subsequently charged the Appellant.
7. The complainant’s age was established through her birth certificate, PExh. 1, which showed that she was born on 9th May 2004. She was therefore 17 years old at the time of the alleged offence.
8. In his unsworn defence, the Appellant denied committing the offence. He stated that on 18th January 2022, he woke up in the morning and went towards the road, where he met Esther Munanie. He stated that Esther was his neighbour and that they had previously disagreed after she grazed her animals on his farm, resulting in an exchange of insults. He further stated that Esther later called the area Chief, who came and took them to his office. While at the Chief’s office, Esther’s son, Dennis Kimanzi, arrived and the Appellant was locked in a room alone before being taken to Mwingi Police Station on a motorcycle. He further pointed out that the Chief and Dennis Kimanzi were not called as witnesses.
9. Upon considering the evidence, the learned trial magistrate found that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant was consequently convicted on 19th August 2025 of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act and to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment on 19th August 2025.
10. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Appellant through MCM Advocates LLP lodged the present appeal dated 28th July 2025 and raised four grounds of appeal namely that:
1) The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to appreciate that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and that the inconsistencies ought to have been resolved in favour of the Appellant.
2) The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by disregarding the Appellant’s defence that he had been framed by the complainant’s mother.
3) The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant against the weight of the evidence, which did not meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
4) The learned trial magistrate analysed the evidence in a perfunctory manner and failed to scrutinise it as expected of the court, thereby reaching a determination unsupported by the law and evidence.
11. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Appellant, through MCM Advocates LLP, filed written submissions dated 10th August 2026. The Appellant challenged the sufficiency and consistency of the prosecution evidence and submitted that the alleged inconsistencies had not been properly resolved by the trial court. He further contended that his defence of having been framed by the complainant’s mother was not properly considered and that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant relied on the authorities contained in his bundle of authorities.
12. The Respondent filed written submissions dated 25th August 2026. It submitted that the four grounds could substantially be addressed under the overarching question whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It submitted that the complainant’s age was established by her birth certificate, that she properly identified the Appellant, and that penetration was proved by her evidence and supported by the medical evidence of PW3. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant’s unsworn defence did not dislodge the prosecution case. The Respondent further submitted that the Petition of Appeal did not specifically challenge the sentence and urged the Court to leave the sentence undisturbed. It prayed that both the conviction and sentence be upheld.
13. Having considered the grounds of appeal, the evidence on record and the respective submissions, I identify the following issues for determination:
1) Whether the prosecution proved the age of the complainant.
2) Whether the prosecution proved penetration.
3) Whether the Appellant was proved to be the person who committed the offence.
4) Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence were material and created reasonable doubt.
5) Whether the trial court properly considered the Appellant’s defence.
6) Whether the trial court properly analysed and evaluated the evidence and whether the conviction was safe.
7) Whether there is any basis for interfering with the sentence.
14. The first issue is whether the prosecution proved the age of the complainant. Age is an essential ingredient of the offence of defilement and, in this case, determines the applicable subsection of section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act. The complainant testified that she was born on 9th May 2004. Her birth certificate was produced in evidence as PEXH. 1. The offence was alleged to have occurred on 17th January 2022. She was therefore seventeen years old on the material date. From the foregoing, the finding by the trial court that the prosecution proved the age of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt was well founded.
15. The second issue is whether penetration was proved. The complainant testified that the Appellant took her to his house, locked the door, forced her onto a bed, removed her school uniform and his clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. She stated that sexual intercourse occurred three times.
16. PW3, Dr. Curtis Alice, examined the complainant on 19th January 2022, following her initial examination at Mwingi Level 4 Hospital on 18th January 2022. He found that her hymen was ruptured, there was bleeding and she had a posterior vaginal laceration. He produced the P3 form as P. Exhibit 2 and the treatment notes as P. Exhibit 3. The findings were consistent with penetration and supported the complainant’s account.
17. In Davis Kipkoech v Republic [2022] KEHC 2675 (KLR), the Court considered the complainant’s evidence together with the medical findings in determining whether penetration had been established. In the present case, upon re-evaluating the evidence, this Court finds, as did the trial court, that the prosecution proved the ingredient of penetration beyond reasonable doubt.
18. The third issue is whether the Appellant was proved to be the person who committed the offence. The complainant knew the Appellant. She testified that she met him while on her way home from school and that he took her to his house, where the sexual act occurred. She was subsequently found at the Appellant’s house. PW2 testified that her son, Dennis Kimanzi, assisted in the search for the complainant and found her with the Appellant at his house. PW2 thereafter went to the house and found them together.
19. The circumstances in which the complainant was found materially connected the Appellant to the offence. This was not a case of identification of a stranger under difficult circumstances. The complainant knew the Appellant and gave a direct account of how she came to be at his house. The principles on the need to examine the evidential connection between an accused person and the offence were considered in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] KECA 743 (KLR).
20. In the present case, the evidential link was sufficiently established. The trial court, upon considering this evidence, found that the Appellant was the person who committed the offence. Upon my own re-evaluation of the evidence, I find, as did the trial court, that the identity of the Appellant as the perpetrator was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21. The fourth issue concerns the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. The Appellant contended that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was inconsistent and that the trial court ought to have resolved the inconsistencies in his favour.
22. In Dishon Mwangi Maina v Republic [2014] KECA 418 (KLR), the Court of Appeal addressed the approach to discrepancies in evidence and the need to determine whether they affect the substance of the prosecution case. In Maina v Republic [2026] KEHC 2714 (KLR), the Court considered the effect of contradictions and the need to assess them against the entire evidential picture. Cheboi & another v Republic [2025] KEHC 668 (KLR) similarly demonstrates the importance of examining whether alleged contradictions are material and whether they affect the safety of a conviction.
23. This Court has considered the evidence as a whole. PW1 testified concerning what happened to her, while PW2 testified principally concerning the search for her daughter and the circumstances in which she was found. Their evidence therefore addressed different aspects of the events. The material facts emerging from the evidence are that the complainant was seventeen years old, she encountered the Appellant on 17th January 2022, she went to his house, she was found there with him and she subsequently underwent medical examination which disclosed genital injuries.
24. Having carefully re-evaluated the evidence, this Court finds that there were no material discrepancies or contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 was complementary and consistent on the material facts, and the medical evidence further supported the complainant’s account. The trial court properly evaluated the evidence and reached the correct finding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. This Court therefore finds, as did the trial court, that the conviction was safe. The first ground of appeal consequently fails.
25. The fifth issue is whether the Appellant’s defence was properly considered. In his unsworn defence, the Appellant denied committing the offence and alleged that he had been framed by the complainant’s mother following a disagreement between them. He also pointed out that the Chief and Dennis Kimanzi were not called as witnesses.
26. The fact that the defence was unsworn did not relieve the trial court of the duty to consider it. The burden of proving the charge remained throughout upon the prosecution. The Appellant was not required to prove his innocence. The question is whether, after considering his defence, the prosecution evidence nevertheless established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
27. In Shitula v Republic [2025] KECA 12, the Court of Appeal considered the prosecution evidence together with the appellant’s defence in determining whether a conviction was safe. In the present case, the allegation of a frame-up does not adequately explain the complainant’s evidence placing the Appellant with her in his house or the medical findings following her examination. The failure to call the Chief or Dennis Kimanzi as witnesses does not, in the circumstances, render the remaining prosecution evidence incapable of supporting a conviction.
28. This court therefore finds that the Appellant’s defence did not raise a reasonable doubt.
29. The sixth issue is whether the conviction was safe. This Court reconsidered and re-evaluated the evidence on record and drew its own conclusions, while bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify. The evidence established the complainant’s age, penetration and the identity of the Appellant as the perpetrator. Her evidence was supported by the circumstances in which she was found at the Appellant’s house and by the medical findings. The Appellant’s defence was also considered but did not displace the prosecution evidence.
30. The complaint that the trial court analysed the evidence perfunctorily was not borne out by the record. The learned trial magistrate considered the evidence as a whole before finding that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Upon its own re-evaluation of the evidence, this Court reached the same conclusion. The conviction was therefore safe.
31. The seventh and final issue is whether there is any basis for interfering with the sentence. The Appellant was convicted under section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act and was sentenced to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment on 19th August 2025. The Respondent submitted that the Petition of Appeal did not specifically challenge the sentence and urged this Court to leave it undisturbed.
32. The complainant was seventeen years old at the time of the offence and the sentence imposed was the minimum prescribed under section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act. No illegality, error of principle or other sufficient basis for interference with the sentence was demonstrated. This Court therefore finds no reason to disturb the sentence.
33. In the result, having considered the grounds of appeal, reconsidered and re-evaluated the evidence on record and considered the respective submissions, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution proved all the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant’s complaints regarding the prosecution evidence and his defence do not disclose any error that would render the conviction unsafe. There is equally no basis for interfering with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
34. Accordingly, the appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. The conviction of the Appellant for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act is upheld. The sentence of fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment imposed on 19th August 2025 is likewise upheld.
2. In the alternative, the Appellant was charged with committing an indecent act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006 by touching the vagina of L.N., a child aged seventeen years.
3. The prosecution called four witnesses in support of its case. PW1, the complainant, L.N., stated that she was born on 09th May 2004. She recalled that on 17th January 2022, while on her way home from school, she met the Appellant at a river. He got hold of her and took her to his house. He locked the door from inside, forced her onto a bed, removed her school uniform and his clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. He had sexual intercourse with her three times that night. The same night, at about 10.00 p.m., her brother, Dennis Kimanzi, went to the Appellant’s house and, upon finding the complainant there, informed his mother. Her mother and Daniel arrested both the complainant and the Appellant and escorted them to the Chief’s office and then to the police station.PW2, the complainant’s mother, testified that the complainant left home for school on 17th January 2022 but did not return. She searched for her with the assistance of her son, Dennis. Dennis found the complainant at the Appellant’s house and alerted PW2. She went there and found the Appellant and the complainant together. She thereafter reported the matter to the police.
4. PW2, Esther Munanie Mwanzia, the complainant’s mother, testified that on 17th January 2022, at about 8.30 a.m., the complainant’s teacher, Mr. Kilonzo, called her and informed her that Lucy had not reported to school. She commenced a search for her and, at about 10.00 a.m., found her at the Appellant’s house. Her son, Dennis, had assisted her in the search and was present when they found the Appellant and the complainant in the house. When she questioned them, they remained silent. The Chief thereafter came and entered the house.PW2 stated that they subsequently made a report at Mwingi Police Station and the complainant was escorted to Mwingi Level IV Hospital for examination. The doctor informed her that the complainant had been defiled. She stated that she had no differences or quarrels with the Appellant.
5. PW3, Dr. Curtis Alice, a medical officer at Mwingi Level 4 Hospital, testified that he examined the complainant, Lucy Ndanu, aged 17 years, on 19th January 2022. She had initially been examined at the hospital on 18th January 2022 after alleging that she had been defiled. Upon examination, he found that her hymen was ruptured, the vaginal walls had lacerations and there was bloody vaginal discharge. He completed the P3 form dated 19th January 2022, which he produced in evidence as PExh. 2.
6. PW4, Police Constable Scholastica Kyambi, the investigating officer, testified that the Appellant and the complainant were brought to Mwingi Police Station on 18th January 2022. She recorded their statements, arranged for the complainant to undergo medical examination and subsequently charged the Appellant.
7. The complainant’s age was established through her birth certificate, PExh. 1, which showed that she was born on 9th May 2004. She was therefore 17 years old at the time of the alleged offence.
8. In his unsworn defence, the Appellant denied committing the offence. He stated that on 18th January 2022, he woke up in the morning and went towards the road, where he met Esther Munanie. He stated that Esther was his neighbour and that they had previously disagreed after she grazed her animals on his farm, resulting in an exchange of insults. He further stated that Esther later called the area Chief, who came and took them to his office. While at the Chief’s office, Esther’s son, Dennis Kimanzi, arrived and the Appellant was locked in a room alone before being taken to Mwingi Police Station on a motorcycle. He further pointed out that the Chief and Dennis Kimanzi were not called as witnesses.
9. Upon considering the evidence, the learned trial magistrate found that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant was consequently convicted on 19th August 2025 of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act and to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment on 19th August 2025.
10. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Appellant through MCM Advocates LLP lodged the present appeal dated 28th July 2025 and raised four grounds of appeal namely that:
1) The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to appreciate that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and that the inconsistencies ought to have been resolved in favour of the Appellant.
2) The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by disregarding the Appellant’s defence that he had been framed by the complainant’s mother.
3) The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant against the weight of the evidence, which did not meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
4) The learned trial magistrate analysed the evidence in a perfunctory manner and failed to scrutinise it as expected of the court, thereby reaching a determination unsupported by the law and evidence.
11. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Appellant, through MCM Advocates LLP, filed written submissions dated 10th August 2026. The Appellant challenged the sufficiency and consistency of the prosecution evidence and submitted that the alleged inconsistencies had not been properly resolved by the trial court. He further contended that his defence of having been framed by the complainant’s mother was not properly considered and that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant relied on the authorities contained in his bundle of authorities.
12. The Respondent filed written submissions dated 25th August 2026. It submitted that the four grounds could substantially be addressed under the overarching question whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It submitted that the complainant’s age was established by her birth certificate, that she properly identified the Appellant, and that penetration was proved by her evidence and supported by the medical evidence of PW3. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant’s unsworn defence did not dislodge the prosecution case. The Respondent further submitted that the Petition of Appeal did not specifically challenge the sentence and urged the Court to leave the sentence undisturbed. It prayed that both the conviction and sentence be upheld.
13. Having considered the grounds of appeal, the evidence on record and the respective submissions, I identify the following issues for determination:
1) Whether the prosecution proved the age of the complainant.
2) Whether the prosecution proved penetration.
3) Whether the Appellant was proved to be the person who committed the offence.
4) Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence were material and created reasonable doubt.
5) Whether the trial court properly considered the Appellant’s defence.
6) Whether the trial court properly analysed and evaluated the evidence and whether the conviction was safe.
7) Whether there is any basis for interfering with the sentence.
14. The first issue is whether the prosecution proved the age of the complainant. Age is an essential ingredient of the offence of defilement and, in this case, determines the applicable subsection of section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act. The complainant testified that she was born on 9th May 2004. Her birth certificate was produced in evidence as PEXH. 1. The offence was alleged to have occurred on 17th January 2022. She was therefore seventeen years old on the material date. From the foregoing, the finding by the trial court that the prosecution proved the age of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt was well founded.
15. The second issue is whether penetration was proved. The complainant testified that the Appellant took her to his house, locked the door, forced her onto a bed, removed her school uniform and his clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. She stated that sexual intercourse occurred three times.
16. PW3, Dr. Curtis Alice, examined the complainant on 19th January 2022, following her initial examination at Mwingi Level 4 Hospital on 18th January 2022. He found that her hymen was ruptured, there was bleeding and she had a posterior vaginal laceration. He produced the P3 form as P. Exhibit 2 and the treatment notes as P. Exhibit 3. The findings were consistent with penetration and supported the complainant’s account.
17. In Davis Kipkoech v Republic [2022] KEHC 2675 (KLR), the Court considered the complainant’s evidence together with the medical findings in determining whether penetration had been established. In the present case, upon re-evaluating the evidence, this Court finds, as did the trial court, that the prosecution proved the ingredient of penetration beyond reasonable doubt.
18. The third issue is whether the Appellant was proved to be the person who committed the offence. The complainant knew the Appellant. She testified that she met him while on her way home from school and that he took her to his house, where the sexual act occurred. She was subsequently found at the Appellant’s house. PW2 testified that her son, Dennis Kimanzi, assisted in the search for the complainant and found her with the Appellant at his house. PW2 thereafter went to the house and found them together.
19. The circumstances in which the complainant was found materially connected the Appellant to the offence. This was not a case of identification of a stranger under difficult circumstances. The complainant knew the Appellant and gave a direct account of how she came to be at his house. The principles on the need to examine the evidential connection between an accused person and the offence were considered in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] KECA 743 (KLR).
20. In the present case, the evidential link was sufficiently established. The trial court, upon considering this evidence, found that the Appellant was the person who committed the offence. Upon my own re-evaluation of the evidence, I find, as did the trial court, that the identity of the Appellant as the perpetrator was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21. The fourth issue concerns the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. The Appellant contended that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was inconsistent and that the trial court ought to have resolved the inconsistencies in his favour.
22. In Dishon Mwangi Maina v Republic [2014] KECA 418 (KLR), the Court of Appeal addressed the approach to discrepancies in evidence and the need to determine whether they affect the substance of the prosecution case. In Maina v Republic [2026] KEHC 2714 (KLR), the Court considered the effect of contradictions and the need to assess them against the entire evidential picture. Cheboi & another v Republic [2025] KEHC 668 (KLR) similarly demonstrates the importance of examining whether alleged contradictions are material and whether they affect the safety of a conviction.
23. This Court has considered the evidence as a whole. PW1 testified concerning what happened to her, while PW2 testified principally concerning the search for her daughter and the circumstances in which she was found. Their evidence therefore addressed different aspects of the events. The material facts emerging from the evidence are that the complainant was seventeen years old, she encountered the Appellant on 17th January 2022, she went to his house, she was found there with him and she subsequently underwent medical examination which disclosed genital injuries.
24. Having carefully re-evaluated the evidence, this Court finds that there were no material discrepancies or contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 was complementary and consistent on the material facts, and the medical evidence further supported the complainant’s account. The trial court properly evaluated the evidence and reached the correct finding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. This Court therefore finds, as did the trial court, that the conviction was safe. The first ground of appeal consequently fails.
25. The fifth issue is whether the Appellant’s defence was properly considered. In his unsworn defence, the Appellant denied committing the offence and alleged that he had been framed by the complainant’s mother following a disagreement between them. He also pointed out that the Chief and Dennis Kimanzi were not called as witnesses.
26. The fact that the defence was unsworn did not relieve the trial court of the duty to consider it. The burden of proving the charge remained throughout upon the prosecution. The Appellant was not required to prove his innocence. The question is whether, after considering his defence, the prosecution evidence nevertheless established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
27. In Shitula v Republic [2025] KECA 12, the Court of Appeal considered the prosecution evidence together with the appellant’s defence in determining whether a conviction was safe. In the present case, the allegation of a frame-up does not adequately explain the complainant’s evidence placing the Appellant with her in his house or the medical findings following her examination. The failure to call the Chief or Dennis Kimanzi as witnesses does not, in the circumstances, render the remaining prosecution evidence incapable of supporting a conviction.
28. This court therefore finds that the Appellant’s defence did not raise a reasonable doubt.
29. The sixth issue is whether the conviction was safe. This Court reconsidered and re-evaluated the evidence on record and drew its own conclusions, while bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify. The evidence established the complainant’s age, penetration and the identity of the Appellant as the perpetrator. Her evidence was supported by the circumstances in which she was found at the Appellant’s house and by the medical findings. The Appellant’s defence was also considered but did not displace the prosecution evidence.
30. The complaint that the trial court analysed the evidence perfunctorily was not borne out by the record. The learned trial magistrate considered the evidence as a whole before finding that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Upon its own re-evaluation of the evidence, this Court reached the same conclusion. The conviction was therefore safe.
31. The seventh and final issue is whether there is any basis for interfering with the sentence. The Appellant was convicted under section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act and was sentenced to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment on 19th August 2025. The Respondent submitted that the Petition of Appeal did not specifically challenge the sentence and urged this Court to leave it undisturbed.
32. The complainant was seventeen years old at the time of the offence and the sentence imposed was the minimum prescribed under section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act. No illegality, error of principle or other sufficient basis for interference with the sentence was demonstrated. This Court therefore finds no reason to disturb the sentence.
33. In the result, having considered the grounds of appeal, reconsidered and re-evaluated the evidence on record and considered the respective submissions, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution proved all the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant’s complaints regarding the prosecution evidence and his defence do not disclose any error that would render the conviction unsafe. There is equally no basis for interfering with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
34. Accordingly, the appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. The conviction of the Appellant for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act is upheld. The sentence of fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment imposed on 19th August 2025 is likewise upheld.