Telewa v Republic (Criminal Appeal 85 of 2019) [2024] KECA 217 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal replaced a 76-year-old man's life sentence for defilement with 20 years, ruling mandatory life imprisonment is unconstitutional.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the trial court and first appellate court failed to exercise discretion in sentencing by ignoring the appellant's mitigation, including his age
- 2.Whether the indeterminate life sentence imposed under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional
- 3.Whether this Court should remit the matter to the High Court or itself reconsider the sentence
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal on a second appeal against sentence
Severity of sentence is a matter of fact, but the Court may intervene where a matter of law arises, such as failure to consider mitigation or misapprehension of facts by the first appellate court
Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code confines second appeals to matters of law; sentence severity is factual. Here the first appellate court misapprehended the facts (stating the complainant was 12 and the sentence 15 years) and failed to address the appellant's mitigation, so the Court found a matter of law justifying intervention.
Constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act
The indeterminate life sentence imposed was unconstitutional because mandatory minimum sentences inhibit judicial discretion in sentencing
The Court relied on its prior jurisprudence, including Joshua Gichuki Mwangi and Julius Kitsao Manyeso, holding mandatory minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act and indeterminate life sentences unconstitutional. The trial magistrate imposed life imprisonment as a matter of course without any reference to mitigation, depriving the sentencing court of discretion.
Whether to remit for resentencing or substitute sentence directly
The Court substituted the sentence itself rather than remitting, given the appellant's age and the delay
Although remittal would have been desirable, the appellant was 76 years old and the sentence had been in place for almost 10 years. Remitting would unduly delay finalisation of the appellate process, and the appellant had raised a pure point of law on the legality of the sentence appropriate for the Court to determine.
Legal principles established
#- Mandatory minimum sentences in sexual offences are unconstitutional to the extent that they inhibit the exercise of sentencing discretion by the trial court
- An indeterminate life sentence is unconstitutional
- A trial court must properly exercise its discretion in sentencing even where a mandatory statutory sentence applies, by taking note of the circumstances before it
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's life sentence is set aside and substituted with a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code (second appeal on matters of law only); Rule 33 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Appeal against conviction
The appellant abandoned the appeal against conviction when the appeal came up for hearing
Implicit request for remission to the High Court
The Court found remittal would unduly delay finalisation given the appellant's age of 76 and the sentence being nearly 10 years old
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Needless to state that mandatory minimum sentences in sexual offences are unconstitutional to the extent that they inhibit the exercise of discretion by the trial court.
In addition, this Court in Julius Kitsao Manyeso v Republic (Criminal Appeal No 12 of 2021) [2023] KECA 827 (KLR), held that indeterminate life sentence is unconstitutional.
we set aside the appellant's life sentence and substitute thereto to a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. To this extent only does the appeal succeed. It is so ordered.
a trial court has a responsibility to properly exercise its discretion in sentencing, by taking note of the circumstances before it.
Issues in the judgment
#The first appellate court is recorded as having misapprehended the facts, stating the complainant was 12 years old and the sentence was 15 years' imprisonment, when the record shows a 7-year-old complainant and a life sentence
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Telewa v Republic (Criminal Appeal 85 of 2019) [2024] KECA 217 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Criminal Appeal (not separately numbered in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/217/eng@2024-02-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.