Woman fails to overturn 20 years’ defilement sentence
Margaret Nyokabi defiled a 14-year-old boy on April 12 and 15, 2021 at a village within Tana River County.
What you need to know:
- Ms Margaret Nyokabi had been sentenced by a magistrate’s court in Hola after she was found guilty of defiling the boy.
- She filed an appeal against the decision at the High Court which was dismissed and went on to file the second appeal.
A woman who defiled a 14-year-old boy in Tana River County will continue to serve a 20-year jail term imposed on her after the court dismissed her appeal against the conviction and sentence.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the prosecution evidence against Margaret Nyokabi was overwhelming, she defiled the minor who was then in class six severally and showed no remorse upon conviction.
Appellate judges Gatembu Kairu, Lydia Achode and George Odunga further ruled that the sentence imposed on Ms Nyokabi was commensurate with the offence.
“We find that this appeal is lacking in merit and is therefore dismissed, the conviction and sentence are upheld,” ruled the three judge appellate bench.
Ms Nyokabi had been convicted and sentenced by a magistrate’s court in Hola after she was found guilty of defiling the boy.
She filed an appeal against the decision at the High Court which was dismissed and went on to file the second appeal against the judgment of the High Court at the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Ms Nyokabi did not demonstrate in what manner she was discriminated against or how her human dignity was violated in the trial.
“In this case, the appellant was taken through a trial at the end of which she was convicted and sentenced and is serving a legal sentence, the deprivation of her freedom was therefore justified and is not a violation of fundamental freedom,” ruled the Court of Appeal.
The appellate court also noted that the record of appeal indicated that the trial of Ms Nyokabi at the magistrate’s court followed the proper procedure and that she had a chance to hear the evidence brought against her and cross examine witnesses.
“She also got a chance to mount her defence and offer mitigation. In a nutshell, we find the appellant (Ms Nyokabi) has failed to demonstrate that her rights under the constitution were violated,” ruled the Court of Appeal.
The court also ruled that the question of grudge between the appellant and the victim’s mother did not hold water since the complaint did not originate from the boy’s mother.
“We are satisfied that the ingredients of penetration and identification of the perpetrator were proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution,” ruled the Court of Appeal.
It further ruled that the severity of the sentence complained by Ms Nyokabi was not a matter of law that was open for consideration by the court on second appeal.
“The appellant has not demonstrated the existence of any of the foregoing exceptions to the rule and that a minimum mandatory sentence sets the floor rather than the ceiling,” ruled the three judge bench.
In her appeal, Ms Nyokabi had argued that the sentence imposed on her was harsh, excessive and unjust and the court did not take her mitigation into consideration.
She also argued that the mandatory minimum sentence was unfair because it interfered with the discretion of judges and magistrates in imposing alternative sentences and that it offended the constitution which dictates fair trial and the benefit of equal treatment in law.
The prosecution told the court that the sentence against the appellant was not harsh, excessive or unjust and that under Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Act the court lacked jurisdiction to hear matters of fact.
It further told the court that the appellant showed no remorse upon being found guilty and instead vehemently denied committing the offence.
Ms Nyokabi committed the offence on April 12 and 15, 2021 at a village within Tana River County.
