1. The Applicant was convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, in Kilifi Sexual Offences Case No. E039 of 2023. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
2. The Applicant filed an Application seeking what he calls revision of his case. In his affidavit, he states that the matter originated from an incident that took place when he was barely 15 years old and concluded when he was 17 years old. He is serving his sentence at Shimo la Tewa Maximum Security Prison. He stated that he is confined with adult convicts, contrary to section 26 of the Children Act.
3. Both the Constitution and statute protect the rights and welfare of children. Article 53(2) of the Constitution provides that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. The law also recognizes that there will be instances where children will be in conflict with the law and appropriate provision has been made in respect thereof. Article 53(1)(f) provides as follows:
(1) Every child has the right–
(f) not to be detained, except as a measure of last resort, and when detained, to be held –
(i) for the shortest appropriate period of time; and
(ii) separate from adults and in conditions that take account of the child’s sex and age.
4. Section 26(2) of the Children Act echoes the provision as follows:
Children deprived of liberty, detained or held in custody or committed to an institution shall be held separate from adults in facilities, including transportation facilities, appropriate to their special needs and age.
5. What this Court must now do is peruse the record and determine whether indeed the above provisions were violated and if so, grant to the Applicant appropriate relief as provided under Article 23(3) of the Constitution.
6. The record shows that on 27.4.23 when the charge was read to the Applicant, he told the trial court that he was 16 years old. Plea was deferred so that a pro bono advocate could be appointed for the Applicant. After conclusion of the hearing, judgment was to be delivered on 13.12.23 but the Applicant was absent and a warrant of arrest was issued. Judgment was delivered on 11.4.24 in his absent. Following his arrest, the Applicant was sentenced on 6.5.25.
7. Given that the Applicant was 16 years old on 27.4.23 when he was arraigned before the trial court, a simple calculation will show that 2 years later on 6.5.25 when he was sentenced, he was over 18 years old. Indeed, at sentencing, the trial court noted that the Applicant was then an adult. His claim that the matter was concluded when he was 17 years old does not hold water.
8. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application is unmerited and the same is dismissed.
DATED SIGNED and DELIVERED in MALINDI this 17th day of July 2026
2. The Applicant filed an Application seeking what he calls revision of his case. In his affidavit, he states that the matter originated from an incident that took place when he was barely 15 years old and concluded when he was 17 years old. He is serving his sentence at Shimo la Tewa Maximum Security Prison. He stated that he is confined with adult convicts, contrary to section 26 of the Children Act.
3. Both the Constitution and statute protect the rights and welfare of children. Article 53(2) of the Constitution provides that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. The law also recognizes that there will be instances where children will be in conflict with the law and appropriate provision has been made in respect thereof. Article 53(1)(f) provides as follows:
(1) Every child has the right–
(f) not to be detained, except as a measure of last resort, and when detained, to be held –
(i) for the shortest appropriate period of time; and
(ii) separate from adults and in conditions that take account of the child’s sex and age.
4. Section 26(2) of the Children Act echoes the provision as follows:
Children deprived of liberty, detained or held in custody or committed to an institution shall be held separate from adults in facilities, including transportation facilities, appropriate to their special needs and age.
5. What this Court must now do is peruse the record and determine whether indeed the above provisions were violated and if so, grant to the Applicant appropriate relief as provided under Article 23(3) of the Constitution.
6. The record shows that on 27.4.23 when the charge was read to the Applicant, he told the trial court that he was 16 years old. Plea was deferred so that a pro bono advocate could be appointed for the Applicant. After conclusion of the hearing, judgment was to be delivered on 13.12.23 but the Applicant was absent and a warrant of arrest was issued. Judgment was delivered on 11.4.24 in his absent. Following his arrest, the Applicant was sentenced on 6.5.25.
7. Given that the Applicant was 16 years old on 27.4.23 when he was arraigned before the trial court, a simple calculation will show that 2 years later on 6.5.25 when he was sentenced, he was over 18 years old. Indeed, at sentencing, the trial court noted that the Applicant was then an adult. His claim that the matter was concluded when he was 17 years old does not hold water.
8. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application is unmerited and the same is dismissed.
DATED SIGNED and DELIVERED in MALINDI this 17th day of July 2026