'
Duncan Kiplangat Too, the Applicant herein was tried, convicted and sentenced to serve 15 years imprisonment for the offence of defilement Contrary to Section 8 (1) as read with Section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006 vide Kericho CMCCR.C No.46 OF 2015.
The Applicant argued that this Court is seised with jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application for sentence review under Article 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution.
The Republic opposed the Application stating that the Applicant has not demonstrated how any of his fundamental rights have been violated. It was further pointed out that the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing has not been infringed as the sentence meted out by the Trial Court was within the law.
There is no doubt that the Trial Court sentenced the Applicant to serve a statutory minimum sentence set out under section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006. In paragraph 7.17 of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines , it is clearly stated that where the law provides for mandatory minimum sentence, the Court is bound by those provisions and must not impose a sentence lower than what is prescribed.
It is therefore clear that this Court cannot interfere with the sentence meted out by adjusting below the statutory minimum sentence.
In Republic =vs= Joshua Gichuki Mwangi [2024] eKLR, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences set out in the Sexual Offences Act.
I am also convinced by the submissions made by the Republic that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that his rights to a fair hearing Under Article 50 of the Constitution were infringed.
In the end, I find the Applicant’s Application filed on 20 th November, 2023 to be without merit. The same is dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kericho this 30th day
of October, 2025.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the Presence of:-
C/Assistant – Rutoh
Prosecutor – Masisa
Applicant – Present in Person
'
Duncan Kiplangat Too, the Applicant herein was tried, convicted and sentenced to serve 15 years imprisonment for the offence of defilement Contrary to Section 8 (1) as read with Section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006 vide Kericho CMCCR.C No.46 OF 2015.
The Applicant argued that this Court is seised with jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application for sentence review under Article 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution.
The Republic opposed the Application stating that the Applicant has not demonstrated how any of his fundamental rights have been violated. It was further pointed out that the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing has not been infringed as the sentence meted out by the Trial Court was within the law.
There is no doubt that the Trial Court sentenced the Applicant to serve a statutory minimum sentence set out under section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006. In paragraph 7.17 of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines , it is clearly stated that where the law provides for mandatory minimum sentence, the Court is bound by those provisions and must not impose a sentence lower than what is prescribed.
It is therefore clear that this Court cannot interfere with the sentence meted out by adjusting below the statutory minimum sentence.
In Republic =vs= Joshua Gichuki Mwangi [2024] eKLR, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences set out in the Sexual Offences Act.
I am also convinced by the submissions made by the Republic that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that his rights to a fair hearing Under Article 50 of the Constitution were infringed.
In the end, I find the Applicant’s Application filed on 20 th November, 2023 to be without merit. The same is dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kericho this 30th day
of October, 2025.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the Presence of:-
C/Assistant – Rutoh
Prosecutor – Masisa
Applicant – Present in Person
'