On 10 September 2025, the High Court in Eldoret placed Pius Mugendi Miriti’s five-year defilement sentence under review. He had not appealed his conviction or sentence. Neither had the prosecution sought a harsher penalty.
But when the case file was placed before Justice Reuben Nyakundi through a station referral, the judge invoked his discretionary revisionary powers and substituted the term with 15 years’ imprisonment.
According to court documents, Miriti had been charged at Kesses with defiling a 16-year-old girl between 8 and 12 September 2019, contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act.
In the alternative, he faced a count of committing an indecent act with a child.
After the trial, the magistrate convicted him of defilement and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
Section 8(4) of the Act, however, prescribes a minimum of 15 years for defilement of a child aged 16 to 18. The five-year term was therefore considered far below the statutory minimum.
That irregularity was flagged by the Head of Station at Eldoret Law Courts, who referred the file to the High Court for review.
“Thereafter, this case docket was brought to my attention by the Head of the Station to peruse the record to satisfy myself whether the order on sentence meets the legislative scheme on punishment,” the judge highlighted.
Under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and can call up records to check the legality, propriety, or correctness of their decisions.
Acting on that authority, Justice Nyakundi issued a notice to Miriti on 6 August 2025, informing him that the court intended to examine whether his sentence was legal.
Miriti appeared in court and pleaded for leniency. He said he was remorseful and urged the judge to consider the grounds of appeal he had already filed separately.
On its part, the state supported bringing the sentence into line with the law. Although the prosecution had not filed a formal application, the High Court was empowered to proceed once the record was before it.
Justice Nyakundi began his analysis by noting that sentencing is primarily a matter of judicial discretion but must be exercised within statutory limits.
Citing Kenyan and foreign case law, he held that an appellate or revision court is entitled to interfere where a sentence is illegal, based on wrong principles, or manifestly lenient or excessive.
“The facts of this case are on point in that the learned trial Magistrate imposed a ‘nonexistent sentence’ which is not in consonant with the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act,” he noted.
Because a statutory obligation had set the minimum penalty, the High Court was duty-bound to correct the error.
The judge also warned against sentencing disparities that erode public confidence in the justice system.
Similar offenders who commit the same crime should receive broadly similar punishment, he said, and unexplained departures from minimum sentences undermine the rule of law.
“Discretion in sentencing is properly exercised when Judges and Magistrates follow established legal parameters, and there should be no error to take into account wrong principles,” he said.
Turning to Miriti’s plea for mercy, Justice Nyakundi observed that the convict had not presented any exceptional circumstances that could justify retaining the five-year term.
Remorse alone was not enough to override the statutory minimum. However, the judge applied section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which gives credit for time spent in custody.
Miriti had been in pre-trial detention for two years and two months; that period would be deducted from the 15-year custodial term now imposed.
Having found the original sentence unlawful, the High Court set it aside and substituted it with the minimum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment provided under section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act.
With the credit for time already served, Miriti will serve a
little under 13 years from the date of conviction. The judge also granted him
leave to appeal.
