Manyeki v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E007 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 9346 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9346 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KERUGOYA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION E007 OF 2023 EM MURIITHI, J JULY 1, 2026 BETWEEN JULIUS KAGWANJA MANYEKI ........................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The applicant was on 19/12/2016 charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8 (1) as read with section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offence Act No. 3 of 2006. The particulars of the offence are that on 15th April, 2016 at [Particulars Withheld] village within Kirinyaga county, intentionally and unlawfully caused his penis to penetrate the vagina of MNK, a child aged 12 years. 2. Upon full trial, he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for twenty (20) years on 23rd January, 2018. His appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 005 of 2019, was dismissed by the High Court and the sentence afirmed on 28th November, 2019 and he did not pursue another appeal. 3. The applicant has been in custody from arrest on 17/12/ 2016 to date, for close 10 years. He seeks a review of his sentence urging that he has been rehabilitated while in prison and that he was relatively young when he committed the offence. 4. The Prosecution has not filed submissions. Issue 5. The issue for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to review of sentence in the circumstances of this case. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9346/eng@2026-07-01 1
page 1 of 3
Analysis 6. The applicant was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8 (1) as read with section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offence Act No. 3 of 2006. He is serving 20 years’ sentence. The applicant has been in custody for 10 years and he seeks a review of his sentence as he has been rehabilitated, urging the court to consider that he is a first time offender and he has been rehabilitated while in prison. 7. The Applicant has urged the Court to consider his alleged rehabilitation. While rehabilitation is an important objective of sentencing, sentence review is not granted merely on the basis of time served or good conduct in prison. The Applicant’s youth at the time of the offence and claims of good conduct in prison were matters that could (and presumably were) considered during sentencing and the appeal. They do not provide a fresh basis for collateral review in this forum. 8. Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for twenty (20) years for defilement of a child aged 12 to under 16 years. 9. In the present case, the Applicant’s sentence was already considered and sustained as his appeal was dismissed, and the appellate decision remains valid and binding, and this Court cannot sit on appeal over a court of concurrent jurisdiction through revision. 10. Recent Supreme Court authority has clarified that Muruatetu principles [Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v. Republic [2017] eKLR] (which struck down mandatory death sentences for murder) do not extend to invalidate mandatory or minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act, and that only Parliament can amend such statutory sentences and that Courts must apply the law as enacted unless a specific constitutional challenge succeeds on its merits. 11. This matter is, therefore, now settled by precedent of the Supreme Court where in the twin decisions of Manyeso [Republic v Manyeso [2025] KESC 16 (KLR)] and Ayako [Republic v Ayako (Petition E002 of 2024) [2025] KESC 20 (KLR)], the Supreme Court has ruled that the courts have no jurisdiction to re-sentence to a term of years in reduction of the life and mandatory minimum sentences prescribed for the offence of defilement unless a constitutional petition in the fashion of Muruatetu case [Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v. Republic [2017] eKLR] is filed challenging the constitutionality of the life and mandatory minmum sentences in these cases. See the Muruatetu Directions [Muruatetu & another v Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae) [2021] KESC 31 (KLR)]. 12. There is, consequently, no jurisdiction for the resentencing sought by the petitioner and the petition shall be declined. Orders 13. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the petition/application herein has no merit and it is declined. Order accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY 2026. EDWARD M. MURIITHI JUDGE Appearances: Mr. Mwangi for the DPP. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9346/eng@2026-07-01 2
page 2 of 3
Petitioner/Applicant in person. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9346/eng@2026-07-01 3
page 3 of 3