'1. GEORGE AUKO ONG’ONDO (‘the accused’) was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. The alternative charge was committing an Indecent Act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006.
2. In its judgment of 24/7/2025, the trial Court found that neither of the charges were proved. That instead, the prosecution had proved Sexual Assault under section 5(1) (2) of the Sexual Offences Act. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused for the said offence.
3. However, on 27/8/2025 when the matter came up for sentencing, the Court was of the view that it had convicted the accused on the charge of defilement and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. A reading of the sentence meted out discloses that fact.
4. The file is before me for revision under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section provides: -
“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.’’
5. I have seen the provision under which the accused was convicted on. It does not have life as the Mandatory sentence. The sentence was therefore irregularly meted out.
6. In this regard, the life sentence meted out on the accused is hereby reviewed and set aside. The file is remitted back to the trial Court to mete out a lawful sentence in accordance with its Judgment of 24/7/2025.
It is so ordered.
'
2. In its judgment of 24/7/2025, the trial Court found that neither of the charges were proved. That instead, the prosecution had proved Sexual Assault under section 5(1) (2) of the Sexual Offences Act. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused for the said offence.
3. However, on 27/8/2025 when the matter came up for sentencing, the Court was of the view that it had convicted the accused on the charge of defilement and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. A reading of the sentence meted out discloses that fact.
4. The file is before me for revision under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section provides: -
“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.’’
5. I have seen the provision under which the accused was convicted on. It does not have life as the Mandatory sentence. The sentence was therefore irregularly meted out.
6. In this regard, the life sentence meted out on the accused is hereby reviewed and set aside. The file is remitted back to the trial Court to mete out a lawful sentence in accordance with its Judgment of 24/7/2025.
It is so ordered.
'