In a harrowing case, the Court of Appeal sitting in Nakuru has upheld a life sentence handed to a man convicted of repeatedly defiling his 15-year-old stepdaughter.
The court dismissed the appeal by JAA, ruling that the evidence against him was overwhelming and that justice had been served.
The man had been found guilty of incest and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Naivasha Magistrate’s Court in 2015.
The verdict was affirmed by the High Court in 2018 and again by the Court of Appeal on May 9, 2025.
At the heart of the case was the disturbing testimony of the minor, who recounted years of abuse at the hands of a man she had grown up calling “father.”
“I was in the kitchen when he came home drunk,” the girl, told the trial court.
“He called me into the house, took me to his bedroom, removed my panties, and defiled me."
The teenager’s testimony was further supported by her mother, who told the court she walked in on the horrific scene that July evening in 2013.
“I had come home late because he failed to pick me with his bicycle,” the mother told the court.
“Our house was partitioned with a curtain. I found him with my daughter in my bed.”
She described how her daughter picked up her panties from the floor and walked to the kitchen in shame.
It was there, through sobs and trembling words, that the minor revealed the abuse.
“She told me he found her in the kitchen and called her into the main house,” said the mother.
“He picked her by force and defiled her.”
According to her testimony, it was not the first time the abuse had occurred.
The girl revealed to the court that the first incident had taken place in February of the same year, when her mother was away in Nairobi.
When she told her mother, however, she kept quiet and never took her to the hospital.
The mother admitted in court that she recalled an earlier occasion when her daughter had called her to say the man “wanted to do ‘tabia mbaya’ (bad things)” to her.
When confronted, JAA denied the allegations.
Medical evidence from the Naivasha District Hospital corroborated the girl’s claims.
The clinical officer testified that the victim arrived at the hospital accompanied by her visibly distressed mother.
Upon examination, she was found to have a torn hymen, bruises on her labia majora, and lacerations on her vagina.
“No discharge, spermatozoa or blood stains were present,” she told the court.
“However, pus cells were found in her urine, and sadly, she tested positive for HIV.”
The court heard that both the accused and his wife were on HIV medication, raising concerns that he knowingly infected the child.
A police officer attached to the Naivasha Police Station confirmed receiving the report on July 19, 2013.
JAA was arrested three days later.
In his defence, JAA denied the allegations.
He claimed he was at work on the day of the incident and had been in communication with his wife because his bicycle had broken down.
He accused his wife of failing to disclose her HIV status before their marriage and argued that he had discovered the child’s status only after taking her to the hospital because she was always unwell.
Nonetheless, both the trial court and the High Court found his version of events lacking credibility.
The trial court convicted him and handed down the mandatory life sentence prescribed under Section 20(1) of the Sexual Offences Act.
On appeal to the High Court, JAA argued that the charge sheet was defective, that his rights were violated by not being informed of his right to legal representation and that the mandatory sentence denied him a fair chance at mitigation.
These arguments were dismissed.
Undeterred, he took his case to the Court of Appeal, raising similar grounds.
He claimed that the charge sheet was flawed because it stated he was the biological father of the child, which he disputed.
He also argued that the sentence was unconstitutional and that he was drunk at the time, which should have been a mitigating factor.
But the Court of Appeal was unconvinced.
“There is uncontroverted evidence that the appellant (JAA) was married to the complainant’s mother and had accepted her as his daughter,” the judgment reads.
“The presumption created by the law that he knew of the relationship was never rebutted.”
Justices Mohamed Warsame, John Mativo, and Mwaniki Gachoka agreed that JAA had been caught in the act and that the girl’s testimony was consistent, graphic and truthful.
Her evidence was supported by her mother and the medical reports.
“Penetration was proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” the judgment continues.
“The evidence of daughter and mother was never shaken in cross-examination. This is a case where the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto.”
The judges also addressed the claim that he was too drunk to have had the necessary intent.
“Even if he was drunk,” they noted, “he never raised the defence of intoxication during the trial. Furthermore, drunkenness does not automatically absolve one from criminal responsibility.”
On the issue of legal representation, the court acknowledged that the record was silent on whether JAA was informed of this right.
However, they pointed out that he actively participated in the trial, cross-examined witnesses and never raised the issue in the High Court.
Therefore, he could not raise it now.
Regarding his claim that the life sentence was excessive, the court ruled that the sentence was lawful and proportionate to the severity of the crime.
