Nturibi v Republic (Criminal Appeal 109 of 2018) [2025] KECA 2088 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that on a second appeal it cannot reduce a mandatory minimum defilement sentence, so the twenty-year term stands.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was any error of law by the two courts below in imposing the twenty years' sentence upon the appellant
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal on second appeal could disturb the twenty-year minimum sentence for defilement of a child aged between twelve and fifteen years
The appeal failed. Severity of sentence is a question of fact outside the Court's remit under section 361(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the mandatory minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act remain lawful per the Supreme Court's decision in Republic v Joshua Gichuki Mwangi.
The Court framed the sole issue as whether the two courts below erred in law in imposing twenty years. Relying on Karani v Republic and the Supreme Court's Mwangi decision, it held that second appeals lie only on questions of law and that sentence severity is a question of fact. It adopted by parity of reasoning the Kibugi decision, noting the appellant had placed no material demonstrating any error of law, and dismissed the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal under section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Court of Appeal considers only matters of law and cannot interfere with findings of fact absent misdirection or plain wrongness
- Harshness or severity of sentence is not an issue of law for determination in a second appeal
- The minimum mandatory sentences under the Sexual Offences Act remain lawful until determined otherwise by the Supreme Court
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Conviction and twenty-year sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court remain undisturbed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- not stated in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 361(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (second appeal confined to matters of law)
Relief refused
#Review of the twenty-year sentence to a non-custodial or shorter sentence
Severity of sentence is a question of fact outside the Court of Appeal's remit on second appeal, and no error of law in sentencing was demonstrated; minimum mandatory sentences under the Sexual Offences Act remain lawful
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.
The only issue for consideration in this appeal is whether there was any error of law by the two courts below in imposing the twenty years' sentence upon the appellant.
By parity of reasoning, we find that this appeal is devoid of merit and we dismiss it.
Orders accordingly.
That being the case, this being a second appeal, severity of sentence becomes a question of fact which is, by dint of section 361 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, outside our remit.
Issues in the judgment
#The memorandum of appeal and grounds asserted an appeal against both conviction and sentence, but the appellant's submissions were confined to sentence only
The judgment does not state the Court of Appeal appeal number or the High Court appeal case number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nturibi v Republic (Criminal Appeal 109 of 2018) [2025] KECA 2088 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal (not expressly numbered in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2088/eng@2025-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.