SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Samuel Mburu Wanyoike v Republic [2018] KECA 350 (KLR)

[2018] KECA 350 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
350
Citation
[2018] KECA 350 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCriminal AppealPostureSecond AppealCoramGATEMBU, Kimaru
Holding

The court held that the ingredients of the offence of defilement were proved to the required standard, and there was no need for the appellant to be subjected to a medical examination. The court also held that the time the appellant spent in custody prior to sentence should not have been taken into account.

Facts

The appellant was convicted of defilement of a seven-year-old child, DN, by penetration with his penis. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Issues

  1. Whether the ingredients of the offence of defilement were proved to the required standard.
  2. Whether it was necessary for the appellant to be subjected to a medical examination to prove the offence.
  3. Whether the time the appellant spent in custody prior to sentence should have been taken into account.

Reasoning

The court considered the evidence and held that penetration was proved, and that the appellant was not required to be subjected to a medical examination. The court also noted that the time spent in custody prior to sentence should not have been taken into account.

Outcome

Affirmed

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Sexual Offences Act
  • Penal Code
Cases cited (7)
  • Dzombo Mataza vs. R
  • Karingo v Republic
  • Stephen Nguli Mulili vs Republic
  • Mark Oiruri Mose vs R
  • Evans Wamalwa Simiyu vs Republic
  • AML v Republic
  • Kassim Ali v Republic
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case