Wesa alias Moi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E073 of 2022) [2026] KECA 739 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that mandatory life sentences for defilement remain lawful and can't be challenged on a second appeal.
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 mandatory life sentence prescribed under section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional by reason of its mandatory and indeterminate nature
- 2.Whether the sentence was harsh and excessive in the circumstances, being a first offender claiming reformation and remorse
- 3.Whether the period spent in remand custody should be considered in computation of the sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 4.Whether the Court of Appeal on second appeal can interfere with the sentence imposed
Key legal issues
#Scope of a second appeal against sentence
A second appeal is confined to questions of law; the severity of a sentence is a matter of fact outside the court's remit, and interference is only permissible where the sentence is illegal.
Relying on section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Kaingo v Republic, the court held that sentencing discretion belongs to the trial court and appellate interference is limited to illegality. Because the life sentence imposed is the penalty prescribed by section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, it is not illegal, and arguments of harshness or severity cannot succeed on second appeal.
Constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence under the Sexual Offences Act
The mandatory life sentence remains lawful and constitutionally valid; a court cannot assume original jurisdiction to substitute statutory sentences, and Muruatetu was confined to the mandatory death sentence for murder.
Guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Republic v Julius Kitsao Manyeso, the court held that judicial substitution of mandatory sentences usurps legislative authority and violates separation of powers. Muruatetu (as clarified in the 2021 Directions) did not invalidate mandatory or minimum sentences generally. In R v Mwangi, the Supreme Court affirmed the mandatory minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act and directed that their constitutionality be tested through the hierarchy of courts. The appellant had not pursued that route through the High Court.
Legal principles established
#- A second appeal to the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law only
- Severity of sentence is a matter of fact and outside the realm of the Court of Appeal on a second appeal
- Substituting statutory mandatory sentences by courts is unconstitutional as a usurpation of legislative authority and a violation of separation of powers
- Muruatetu did not invalidate mandatory or minimum sentences generally; it was confined to the mandatory death sentence for murder
- Mandatory minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act are lawful so long as the penalty provisions remain valid, and their constitutionality must be tested through the hierarchy of courts
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, confined to matters of law only
Relief refused
#Setting aside or revising the mandatory life sentence on grounds of unconstitutionality, harshness, discrimination and the appellant's reformation
The mandatory life sentence under the Sexual Offences Act remains lawful and constitutionally valid; Muruatetu did not invalidate mandatory or minimum sentences generally; and severity of sentence is a matter of fact outside a second appeal
Consideration of the period spent in remand custody in computation of sentence (section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code)
The court found the submissions unmeritorious and misconceived; the appeal was against sentence only and was dismissed
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 mandate of this court on a second appeal is confined to matters of law only, unless it is shown that the courts below considered matters they should not have considered or failed to consider matters they should have considered or looking at the entire decision, it is perverse.
Muruatetu cannot be the authority for stating that all provisions of the law prescribing mandatory or minimum sentences are inconsistent with the Constitution
The apex court further noted that the sentences imposed by the Sexual Offences Act are lawful, and remained lawful, as long as the penalty sections remained valid.
Accordingly, this appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The Court of Appeal cites Julius Kitsao Manyeso v Republic [2023] KECA 827 (KLR) as authority for the unconstitutionality of mandatory life sentences (per the appellant), yet the same name appears as Republic v Julius Kitsao Manyeso (Petition E013 of 2024) [2025] KESC 16 (KLR) in which the Supreme Court is said to have held the Court of Appeal acted ultra vires in that very matter; the judgment does not reconcile the citation of the same party's name across two differently-styled decisions.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wesa alias Moi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E073 of 2022) [2026] KECA 739 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/739/eng@2026-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.