' IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
RULING
(ARISING FROM MOMBASA Criminal Case No. SO.1207 of 2014)
1. The Applicant herein seeks a revision of the sentence imposed in Criminal Case No.
SO.1207 of 2014 for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section
8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006, before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at
Mombasa, in which he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. The Applicant first lodged an appeal before Justice Majanja, which was dismissed, thereby
upholding the trial court’s sentence of life imprisonment.
3. Subsequently, the Applicant filed Petition No. 251 of 2019 before the High Court, where
Justice Ogola partially allowed the petition and reduced the sentence from life
imprisonment to forty (40) years.
4. The Applicant confirms that he has no further intention to appeal and has no pending
appeal before any court. He therefore seeks a review of sentence.
5. The Applicant relies on Article 50(2)(p) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which
guarantees the right to benefit from the least severe sentence applicable, including the right
to seek review where appropriate.
6. The Court further is guided by the Supreme Court’sjurisprudence, including Republic v Joshua
Gichuki Mwangi (Petition E018 of 2023 ), which reaffirmed the constitutionality and
continued operation of mandatory minimum sentences in sexual offences. The Supreme
Court also highlighted the legislative importance of minimum sentences and the need for
consistency in their application. Furthermore, in R v Ayako, th e Supreme Court clarified that
a sentence of life imprisonment means imprisonment for the natural life of the offender.
7. The Court further observes that a court cannot review or vary a sentence imposed by
another court of concurrent and equal jurisdiction. A review mechanism cannot be used to
reopen, disturb, or alter a sentence already affirmed on appeal within the judicial hierarchy.
8. Lastly Justice Ogola, in reducing the sentence to 40 years, considered the Applicant’s
mitigation. The judge however noted the aggravating circumstances remain substantial: The victims were
extremely young—two aged nine and a half (9½) years and one aged twelve (12). The
Applicant’s conduct demonstrated a deliberate pattern of preying on young girls.
9. The offences had severe physical, psychological, and emotional effects on the victims.
The Court finds that the Applicant is not yet fit to rejoin society, and there exists no
assurance that he would desist from similar conduct if released. Continued incarceration is
essential for the protection of young girls.
10. Although the Court would have been inclined to enhance the sentence, such
enhancement is not permissible because the Applicant was not accorded a hearing, as
required under Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
11. In view of the foregoing, the application for sentence review has no legal merit and
cannot succeed.
ORDERS
1. THAT the Application for sentence review be and is hereby dismissed.
2. THAT the sentence of forty (40) years imposed by Justice Ogola shall remain in force.
3. THAT the Applicant retains the right to pursue any lawful remedy available under the
Constitution and applicable statutes
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 13 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
WENDY KAGENDO
JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF KENYA
MOMBASA
IN THE PRESENCE OF;
THE APPLICANT IN PERSON
MR NGIRI FOR THE STATE
MS BEBORA COURT ASSISTANT
'
RULING
(ARISING FROM MOMBASA Criminal Case No. SO.1207 of 2014)
1. The Applicant herein seeks a revision of the sentence imposed in Criminal Case No.
SO.1207 of 2014 for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section
8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006, before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at
Mombasa, in which he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. The Applicant first lodged an appeal before Justice Majanja, which was dismissed, thereby
upholding the trial court’s sentence of life imprisonment.
3. Subsequently, the Applicant filed Petition No. 251 of 2019 before the High Court, where
Justice Ogola partially allowed the petition and reduced the sentence from life
imprisonment to forty (40) years.
4. The Applicant confirms that he has no further intention to appeal and has no pending
appeal before any court. He therefore seeks a review of sentence.
5. The Applicant relies on Article 50(2)(p) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which
guarantees the right to benefit from the least severe sentence applicable, including the right
to seek review where appropriate.
6. The Court further is guided by the Supreme Court’sjurisprudence, including Republic v Joshua
Gichuki Mwangi (Petition E018 of 2023 ), which reaffirmed the constitutionality and
continued operation of mandatory minimum sentences in sexual offences. The Supreme
Court also highlighted the legislative importance of minimum sentences and the need for
consistency in their application. Furthermore, in R v Ayako, th e Supreme Court clarified that
a sentence of life imprisonment means imprisonment for the natural life of the offender.
7. The Court further observes that a court cannot review or vary a sentence imposed by
another court of concurrent and equal jurisdiction. A review mechanism cannot be used to
reopen, disturb, or alter a sentence already affirmed on appeal within the judicial hierarchy.
8. Lastly Justice Ogola, in reducing the sentence to 40 years, considered the Applicant’s
mitigation. The judge however noted the aggravating circumstances remain substantial: The victims were
extremely young—two aged nine and a half (9½) years and one aged twelve (12). The
Applicant’s conduct demonstrated a deliberate pattern of preying on young girls.
9. The offences had severe physical, psychological, and emotional effects on the victims.
The Court finds that the Applicant is not yet fit to rejoin society, and there exists no
assurance that he would desist from similar conduct if released. Continued incarceration is
essential for the protection of young girls.
10. Although the Court would have been inclined to enhance the sentence, such
enhancement is not permissible because the Applicant was not accorded a hearing, as
required under Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
11. In view of the foregoing, the application for sentence review has no legal merit and
cannot succeed.
ORDERS
1. THAT the Application for sentence review be and is hereby dismissed.
2. THAT the sentence of forty (40) years imposed by Justice Ogola shall remain in force.
3. THAT the Applicant retains the right to pursue any lawful remedy available under the
Constitution and applicable statutes
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 13 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
WENDY KAGENDO
JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF KENYA
MOMBASA
IN THE PRESENCE OF;
THE APPLICANT IN PERSON
MR NGIRI FOR THE STATE
MS BEBORA COURT ASSISTANT
'