In April 2011, at around 4pm, Esther (not her real name) was walking from her neighbour’s house in Pap –Oriang sub location, Siaya County when she noticed two men following her.
The men called out to her but she kept on walking hurriedly hoping to get away from them. The men were, however, very insistent and they kept stalking her and making catcalls all of which Esther ignored as she continued on her way home.
One of the men was Geoffrey Oyugi and he and his friend then sent another lady to plead their case.
Esther, however, was not interested in the proposal and the lady confirmed that she was not going to give into their advances. However, unknown to Esther was that the lady was also there to confirm that she was indeed their target.
- READ MORE
- Court orders retrial of two Kenyan rugby players convicted of gang rape
- Four hanged in India seven years after bus rape, but questions still linger on gender violence
- Three men charged with defiling 14-year-old girl in Mombasa
- Child custody row alleged in attack on woman who was gang-raped
At this point, Oyugi and his friend produced knives and held Esther, threatening her and dragged her to a nearby bush.
They then proceeded to rape Esther in turns and after hours in the hands of the two men, they then released her. Esther immediately reported the matter to her family members who rushed her to hospital.
When they were arraigned in court, the two were charged with an offense of gang rape and also faced an alternative charge of committing an indecent act with an adult.
During the court trial, defence said Oyugi and his co-accused had planned to commit the offense. It was premeditated and they used threats and force to accomplish their mission of raping Esther.
The Court established that she was held hostage as she was being raped in turns and severally by Oyugi and his accomplice.
The two were sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Oyugi was, however, not satisfied with the Court’s decision and appealed to the High Court at Siaya.
However, High Court Judge James Makau upheld the sentence and dismissed his appeal.
The judge noted that the sentence was within the law and justified in view of how the offense was executed.
He declined to interfere with the sentence and found the appeal to be without merit and ruled there was no reason why the sentence should be amended.