1.The applicant was charged before the Magistrates court at Eldama Ravine with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual offences Act No. 3 of 2006. The particulars of the charge being that the accused on the 13th day of March, 2013 in Koibatek District within Baringo County committed an act which caused the penetration of his penis into the vagina of EK a child aged about 5 years old.
2.The applicant was charged with alternative count of indecent Act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual offences Act No.3 of 2006. The particulars of the charge were that on the 13th day of March, 2013, in Koibatek District within Baringo County the accused committed an act which caused his penis to come in contact with the vagina of EK a child aged bout 5 years old.
3.The applicant denied all the charges and the matter was set down for full trial where the prosecution called a total of 5 witnesses in support of the charges facing the accused. The accused in his defence gave unsworn statement. He denied the offence.
4.By judgement delivered on the April 8, 2014, the trial court found the Applicant guilty of the offence and convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
5.Dissatisfied with the conviction and the sentence of the trial court, the Applicant lodged an appeal on both conviction and sentence in the High court at Nakuru vide criminal being Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2015 which appeal was transferred to Kabarnet High Court and give a new number being Kabarnet High court criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2017.The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and the sentence were upheld.
6.Still dissatisfied with the decision of the High court, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the court of appeal.
Analysis and Determination
13.I have considered the application and the submissions made by both parties. The issues for determination in this matter are:-i.Whether this honourable court has jurisdiction to handle this application.ii.Whether Applicant is entitled to the orders sought.i.Whether this Honourable court has jurisdiction to handle this application.
14.The applicant argues that this court has jurisdiction under sections 354, 364 and 365 of the C.P.C to hear and determine his application for sentence review. The respondent on the other hand contends that this court lacks jurisdiction to handle this matter having earlier on determined the appeal.
15.It is not disputed that the applicant had his appeal heard and determined by this court and his appeal before the court of appeal is pending hearing and determination. The Supreme Court considered the issue of review of judgements and orders in Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello & 3 others  eKLR and held that:
16.The applicant has not demonstrated any of the above conditions. There is therefore no exceptional reason to warrant review of sentence upheld by this court. The applicant has appeal pending before the court of appeal. The applicant should either pursue the appeal pending before the court of appeal or seek review of this court decision before the court of appeal.
17.Final Orders: -1.Application for review of sentence is hereby dismissed2.Applicant to pursue appeal in the court of appeal or seek review of this court’s decision in the court of appeal.