1. The Applicant moved this Court by a Notice of Motion seeking review of the sentence imposed upon him in Criminal Case No. E655 of 2020 at the CMS Court in Nyamira. The Motion is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Applicant on the same date, in which he states that he was charged, convicted, and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the offence of gang rape, and now prays for a review of that sentence.
2. The Respondent opposed the application and submitted that the sentence imposed was the statutory minimum provided under section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act. It was contended that the Applicant could lawfully have been sentenced to a longer term, including twenty years, given the nature of the offence.
3. I have considered the Motion, the supporting affidavit, the response, and the record from the trial court. The jurisdiction invoked is the Court’s power of revision under sections 362 to 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That jurisdiction is circumscribed and does not permit the Court to reopen issues of discretion or to reconsider sentence merely because the Applicant seeks leniency. The Court may only intervene where there is an illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity on the record.
4. The Applicant does not identify any misdirection, illegality, or irregularity in the sentencing proceedings. His affidavit simply pleads for leniency on account of his circumstances. Such grounds, however sympathetic, do not amount to a basis for revision of sentence.
5. The Applicant was convicted of gang rape under section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act. That section prescribes a penalty of imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years, which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life. The statutory minimum is therefore fifteen years, and the law leaves it to the discretion of the trial court to impose a longer sentence in an appropriate case.
6. The Respondent’s position that the Applicant “ought to have been sentenced to twenty years” is not supported by the statute. While the court is empowered to impose a term exceeding fifteen years where the circumstances warrant, there is no legal requirement for a minimum of twenty years.
7. In the absence of any illegality or misdirection, there is no basis upon which this Court can interfere with the sentence in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction.
Disposition
8. For the foregoing reasons, the application lacks merit and it is hereby ordered:
1) The Notice of Motion for review of sentence is dismissed.
2) The sentence of fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment imposed by the trial court in Nyamira Criminal Case No. E655 of 2020 is affirmed.
2. The Respondent opposed the application and submitted that the sentence imposed was the statutory minimum provided under section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act. It was contended that the Applicant could lawfully have been sentenced to a longer term, including twenty years, given the nature of the offence.
3. I have considered the Motion, the supporting affidavit, the response, and the record from the trial court. The jurisdiction invoked is the Court’s power of revision under sections 362 to 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That jurisdiction is circumscribed and does not permit the Court to reopen issues of discretion or to reconsider sentence merely because the Applicant seeks leniency. The Court may only intervene where there is an illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity on the record.
4. The Applicant does not identify any misdirection, illegality, or irregularity in the sentencing proceedings. His affidavit simply pleads for leniency on account of his circumstances. Such grounds, however sympathetic, do not amount to a basis for revision of sentence.
5. The Applicant was convicted of gang rape under section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act. That section prescribes a penalty of imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years, which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life. The statutory minimum is therefore fifteen years, and the law leaves it to the discretion of the trial court to impose a longer sentence in an appropriate case.
6. The Respondent’s position that the Applicant “ought to have been sentenced to twenty years” is not supported by the statute. While the court is empowered to impose a term exceeding fifteen years where the circumstances warrant, there is no legal requirement for a minimum of twenty years.
7. In the absence of any illegality or misdirection, there is no basis upon which this Court can interfere with the sentence in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction.
Disposition
8. For the foregoing reasons, the application lacks merit and it is hereby ordered:
1) The Notice of Motion for review of sentence is dismissed.
2) The sentence of fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment imposed by the trial court in Nyamira Criminal Case No. E655 of 2020 is affirmed.