By TONY MUSISI
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has asked the High Court in Eldoret to enhance a 30-year jail term imposed on a man convicted of defiling his 10-year-old niece to life imprisonment.
The prosecution argues that the sentence handed down by the lower court was too lenient, considering the victim’s tender age, the close family relationship between her and the offender, and the devastating consequences of the sexual abuse, including her alleged infection with HIV.
Prosecutor Sidi Kirenge told Justice Antony Ndung’u that the trial court failed to give sufficient weight to the circumstances surrounding the offence and instead relied heavily on the convict’s mitigation, particularly his health condition, when determining the sentence.
Kirenge argued that the court ought to have considered the special position of trust that the accused, Cleaophas Kipsang Chepsior, occupied as the victim’s uncle and the lasting physical and psychological consequences of the crime.
“We contend that the learned magistrate failed to consider the tender age of the victim, code-named M.C., and her relationship with the perpetrator, which was one that ought to have been of trust,” she submitted.
The prosecutor urged Justice Ndung’u to call for and examine the trial court records and exercise the High Court’s revisionary powers to correct what the prosecution considers an inadequate sentence.
She maintained that the 30-year imprisonment term did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence, particularly because the victim was only 10 years old when the crime was committed.
Kirenge further submitted that the trial court should have taken into account the trauma suffered by the child and the long-term impact of the offence on her life.
“The lower court should have considered the trauma arising therein and the general impact of the offence on the victim’s life by imposing a life sentence,” she argued.
The prosecution also cited the alleged transmission of HIV to the victim as an aggravating circumstance, saying the consequences of the offence made the punishment imposed by the trial court disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime.
Kirenge called for strict enforcement of the Sexual Offences Act, particularly provisions dealing with sexual offences committed by close relatives against children.
According to the prosecution, Chepsior was first arraigned before the then Eldoret Chief Magistrate Dennis Mikoyan on October 29, 2025, and charged with incest. He denied the charge.
The prosecution subsequently called six witnesses to testify against him during the trial.
Kirenge told the High Court that the prosecution closed its case on February 23, 2026, after presenting its evidence, before the trial court ruled on March 2, 2026, that the accused had a case to answer.
The defence hearing took place on April 2, 2026, after which the court found Chepsior guilty of the offence on April 27, 2026, under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Following the conviction, the court conducted a sentencing hearing, during which it considered the victim impact report and the convict’s mitigation before imposing a 30-year prison term.
However, the ODPP is now challenging the sentence, arguing that the trial court did not adequately apply the relevant provisions of the law when determining the appropriate punishment.
In its submissions, the prosecution relied on Section 20 of the Sexual Offences Act, which criminalises incest involving close relatives.
The provision states that a male person who commits an indecent act or an act causing penetration with a female person whom he knows to be his niece commits the offence of incest and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years.
The law further provides that where the female victim is below the age of 18 years, the offender is liable to life imprisonment, irrespective of whether the act was allegedly committed with the victim’s consent.
The prosecution maintains that the victim’s age placed the case within the category attracting the more severe punishment and that the trial court should have imposed a life sentence rather than the 30 years handed down.
The High Court is now being asked to examine whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was consistent with the applicable law and whether there are sufficient grounds to interfere with it.
Justice Ndung’u is expected to give directions on the matter next month.
