SNT v Republic [2013] eKLR The three or so days of delay did not occasion the appellant an un fair trial. Thus we agree with the learned Judge of the High Court the said delay did not warrant an acquittal of the appellant. (18.)The last ground of appeal is regarding the enhancement of sentence. The learned Judge set aside the sentence of 14 years imprisonment that was imposed by the trial court and substituted it with a life sentence. The appellant was not served with a notice of enhancement of sentence by the respondent. Section 20(1) provides:“Any male person who commits an indecent act or an act persons which causes penetration with a female person who is to his knowledge his daughter, granddaughter, sister, mother, niece, aunt or grandmother is guilty of an offence termed incest and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. Provided that, if it is alleged in the information or charge and proved that the female person is under the age of eighteen years, the accused person shall be liable to imprisonment for life and it shall be immaterial that the act which causes penetration or the indecent act was obtained with the consent of the female person.” Emphasis added”. The evidence is clear that the complainant was aged 11 years old at the time of the sexual assault. The High Court was entitled to correct the sentence because under Section 20(1) of the Sexual offences Act provides for a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of incest where a female child below 18 years is concerned. Consequently, was the appellant required to be served with a notice of enhancement of the sentence in respect of the illegal sentence? In Stanely Nkunja -vs- RepublicCriminal Appeal No. 280 of 2012, this Court held:“While it is prudent, and fair, to warn the appellant and give him a notice of enhancement, we are of the view that such a notice is not required in respect of an illegal sentence. This is because by virtue of the provisions of Section 347(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, appeals to the High Court may be on matters of facts and law. Illegality of a sentence is a matter of law and therefore, the learned Judge was correct in enhancing the sentence to life imprisonment.” In Kingsley Chukwu -vs- Republic – Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2007 this Court, on a second appeal enhanced a sentence that was passed against the appellant therein despite the fact that a notice of enhancement of sentence was not given to the appellant. (19.) This ground of appeal like others also fail; in the upshot we come to the conclusion that the appellant was properly convicted and sentenced. This appeal lacks merit; it is dismissed with the result that the appellant will serve the life sentence ordered by the High Court. Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 6th day of November, 2013. M. K. KOOME …...................................... JUDGE OF APPEAL D. K. MUSINGA http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 6/7