• He also said the grudge the family had with him had an ethnic hate angle, with roots to the 2007-o8 post-election violence.
• But the court would hear none of it, saying the man was clutching at straws. The Court of Appeal decision was delivered on June 9.
Image: FILE
An estate caretaker who lured a six-year-old girl to his house and defiled her as her eight-year-old cousin watched will continue serving life imprisonment.
His multiple appeals have flopped and the Court of Appeal drove the last nail in the coffin, sending him to prison for life.
Peter Mukhabi Esirima worked as estate caretaker in Nakuru where on December 7, 2011, he called TW and BK who were playing in the compound to his house and committed the offense.
The man had all along been friendly to the minors and was nice to them.
After he called them to the house and the two children obeyed, he put TW on the floor and undressed her before undressing himself and defiled her.
TW’s father later noticed she was walking awkwardly and asked her mother to find out what the issue was.
The mother found bruises in her private parts.
At the magistrate’s court, Esirima denied the charge, claiming that he was being framed by the child’s parents because of a personal issue they had with him.
“He blamed the accusations brought against him on differences between him and the minor’s parents, because he once reported to them that their children were misusing the toilet. The parents did not take it well and thus, held a grudge against him,” court documents say.
He also said the grudge the family had with him had an ethnic hate angle, with roots to the 2007-o8 post-election violence.
“….the minor’s family had been evicted from Kitale due to post-election violence and therefore, since he hails from the Western part of Kenya, he sensed that the family was bitter with him for living peacefully in the area when they had been chased away,” the documents read.
The court convicted him and jailed him for life.
Aggrieved, he unsuccessfully appealed at the High Court.
At the Court of Appeal, part his grievance was that the court did not ensure the proceeding was done in a language he understood and hence he was prejudiced.
“…. the appellant complained that the court did not enquire what language he understood and as a result, section 198 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was contravened. He urged the court to find that he was prejudiced since he could not adequately follow the proceedings.”
Also, he claimed the age of the minor was not proved, saying that while the documents showed she was six, her mother said she was seven.
Also, at trial, the prosecution sought and was granted leave to amend the charge sheet but he was not given time to plead to the re-framed charges afresh.
But the court would hear none of it, saying the man was clutching at straws. The Court of Appeal decision was delivered on June 9.
It said the case of the man was an open-and-shut one, as evidence against him was straightforward and had been adequately proven.