Brian Kipkemoi Koech v Republic [2013] eKLR applied to amend the grounds of appeal vide the amended grounds of appeal filed in court on 2nd November, 2012. He has raised five grounds of appeal, which I duplicate as under:1. That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law in sentencing the Appellant on a defective charge sheet, which does not reflect or disclose the definition clause and only reflects the penalty. 2. That the pundit trial Magistrate erred in both law and facts while relying on prosecution case which was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the doctor examined the complainant a month before the alleged complaint. 3. That the pundit Magistrate erred both in law and fact by not observing the contradictory and uncorroborated evidence adduced by prosecution. 4. That the learned trial Magistrate erred in both law and facts by rejecting the Appellant's sworn defence in which he rejected the name Brian Kipkemoi Koech as his name and produced evidence to prove that the alleged name was not his. 5. That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law in convicting the Appellant on a judgment that did not disclose the section of the law that prescribed the penalty thus contravening Section 169 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal was canvassed before me on 20th June, 2013. The Appellant relied on written submissions filed in court on 20th June, 2013. He also applied to withdraw the services of his Lawyers and act in person. The State Counsel, Mr. Mulati made oral submissions in response thereof. I have accordingly considered the submissions of both parties. With regard to ground of appeal No. 1, the Appellant submitted that he was convicted and sentenced on the basis of a defective charge sheet as the same did not reflect the definition clause. I get the Appellant to say that Section 8 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act which defines the offence of defilement was not referred to in the statement of the charge; in this case the charge should have been drawn under Section 8 (1) as read with Section 8 (4) of the Sexual Offences Act. What constitutes a defective charge sheet was spelt out in the case of YOSEFU AND ANOTHER -VSUGANDA (1960) E.A., 236. The East Africa Court of Appeal held:"The charge was defective in that it did not allege an essential ingredient of the offence; i.e. that the skins came from animals etc, in contravention of the Act." And in SIGILANI -VS- REPUBLIC (2004) 2 KLR, 480, it was held that:"The principle of the law governing charge sheets is that an accused should be charged with an offence known in law. The offence should be disclosed and stated in a clear and unambiguous manner so that the accused may be able to plead to specific charge that hecan understand. It will also enable the accused to prepare his defence." On the other hand, Section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for what the components/ingredients of the charge sheet constitute as follows:"Every charge or information shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains, a statement http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 2/6