Martin Kibet Partega v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it cannot reduce a lawful sentence on a second appeal, so the 20-year defilement sentence 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 is any justification for the Court to interfere with the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over severity of sentence on a second appeal
The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a complaint on the severity of sentence, which is a matter of fact under section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, save where the sentence was enhanced by the High Court or was unlawful.
Section 361(1) confines second appeals to matters of law and expressly deems severity of sentence a matter of fact. The Supreme Court in Republic v Mwangi; ISLA (amicus curiae) confirmed that a complaint that a sentence was harsh and excessive falls outside the Court of Appeal's lawful purview on second appeal.
Legality of the 20-year sentence under Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act
The sentence of 20 years for defilement of a 14-year-old girl is the lawful minimum prescribed by Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act and is both lawful and legal.
Section 8(3) prescribes a minimum of 20 years' imprisonment for defilement of a girl aged between 12 and 15 years. The victim was 14 years old, so the trial court's sentence matched the statutory minimum, leaving no basis to question its legality under section 361(1)(b).
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, severity of sentence is a matter of fact and the Court of Appeal cannot entertain it except where the High Court enhanced the sentence or the trial court had no power to pass it.
- An appellate court will not easily interfere with a lawful sentence imposed in the exercise of the trial court's discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal against the sentence is dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Bungoma
- HCCRA No. 81 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 361(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (second appeal limited to matters of law)
Relief refused
#Reduction of the 20-year sentence on grounds of rehabilitation and time served
Severity of sentence is a matter of fact outside the Court's second-appeal jurisdiction under section 361(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
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.
We thus hold that the appeal against the sentence lacks merit and is dismissed.
the Court’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal against sentence is only limited to where the High Court enhanced the sentence or where the trial court had no power to pass the sentence
The sentence is not only lawful but also legal.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to life imprisonment though the sentence under appeal is 20 years
Delivery date of 2026 appears anomalous relative to the 2022 appeal filing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Martin Kibet Partega v Republic", Case Analysis (2026). Criminal Appeal No. E028 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1876/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.