REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2015 ANTHONY SHIKANGA........................................APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC.............................................................RESPONDENT (Being an Appeal from Original Conviction and Sentence in Molo Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No. 154 of 2015by Hon. A Towett , Ag. S.R.M. on 09/06/15). JUDGMENT 1. Anthony Shikanga, the Appellant was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) (2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The Complainant was a child aged five (5) years. After being taken through full trial he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved, he appealed against conviction and sentence. 3. However, when the matter came up for hearing of the appeal, he abandoned the appeal against the conviction but mitigated on sentence. In opposing the appeal, learned counsel for the state, Mr. Omutelema pointed out that what was meted out was the minimum prescribed sentence for the offence. 4. The victim of the crime was aged five (5) years old. 5. In the case of Ogolla S/o Owuor (1954) EACA 270 it was stated that: “The court does not alter a sentence unless the trial Judge has acted upon wrong principles or overlooked some material factors.” 6. Section 8 (2) of the Sexual Offence Act provides thus: “A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.” 7. The sentence imposed was the mandatory prescribed sentence for the offence therefore lawful. The Court had no discretion of imposing any other sentence. In the premises the appeal is devoid of merit. According, it is dismissed. Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 13th day of December, 2018. JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.