A Kakamega man has been sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of defiling a six-year-old girl, in a case that also raised a significant legal question over how courts should sentence offenders who were minors when an offence was committed but become adults before sentencing.
Highlights
- The accused was 17 when the offence occurred but was 22 at sentencing.
- The prosecution called six witnesses and presented medical and age-assessment evidence.
- He was convicted of defilement and assault causing actual bodily harm.
- The court applied the adult penalty provided under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act.
- He received life imprisonment for defilement and four years for assault, with the sentences running concurrently.
Main Story
Court Convicts Man Over Defilement
A Kakamega court has sentenced a man to life imprisonment after finding him guilty of defiling a six-year-old girl.
The accused was 17 years old when the offence happened. By the time the case reached sentencing, however, he had turned 22, a factor that became central to the court’s decision on the appropriate punishment.
The prosecution had charged him under Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. He also faced an alternative charge of committing an indecent act with a child, alongside a separate count of assault causing actual bodily harm.
The prosecution relied on evidence from six witnesses to establish that the child had been sexually assaulted and suffered injuries.
Evidence Presented in Court
An age assessment report was produced to establish the girl’s age. The prosecution said the findings were supported by medical evidence and testimony from other witnesses.
Evidence presented during the trial also established penetration and linked the accused to the offence despite his denial.
After considering the evidence, the court found that the prosecution had proved both defilement and assault causing actual bodily harm beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused was therefore convicted on the two charges.
The Legal Question Over His Age
The case took an unusual turn during sentencing because the accused had been a child at the time of the offence but was an adult when the court was ready to impose punishment.
Section 8(7) of the Sexual Offences Act provides for different sentencing considerations where a person below the age of 18 is convicted of an offence under the Act. Such offenders may be dealt with under laws governing children, including the Borstal Institutions Act and the Children’s Act.
The accused asked the court to take his age at the time of the offence into account as part of his mitigation.
However, the court determined that the provision did not apply to him because he had already attained adulthood by the time he was sentenced.
Court Applies Adult Penalty
The court consequently treated the accused as an adult for purposes of sentencing.
Under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, defilement involving a child aged 11 years or below attracts a sentence of life imprisonment.
The court therefore handed the man a life sentence for defilement.
He was also sentenced to four years in prison for assault causing actual bodily harm.
The two sentences will run concurrently, meaning the life sentence effectively determines the period he will remain in custody. The sentence took effect from June 17, 2026.
Similar Cases Have Raised Questions
The case highlights a broader issue that Kenyan courts have previously had to consider: what happens when an accused person is a child when an offence occurs but reaches adulthood before the case is concluded?
The Court of Appeal addressed a similar issue in Kiti v Republic, where it considered the legal protections applicable to an offender who was a minor when an offence was committed but had become an adult by the time the proceedings were completed.
While the offender’s age at the time of the offence remains an important consideration in child justice matters, courts may also have to address the legal consequences of an accused reaching adulthood before sentencing.
In the Kakamega matter, the trial court ultimately concluded that the accused should be sentenced as an adult and that the statutory punishment under Section 8(2) was applicable.
The decision underscores the difficult intersection between child justice protections, the age of an accused at the time of an offence and the law applicable when sentencing eventually takes place.
The case is a reminder that when justice involves children, the law must balance accountability, protection and the complex question of an offender’s age at different stages of the legal process.
