HE THOUGHT THE GIRL WAS EIGHTEEN HE`S NOW SERVING FIFTEEN YEARS FOR DEFILEMENT.

At the age of sixteen, AAA would routinely sneak away from her parent's house to spend time with her lover, Ali Kazungu, and have consensual intercourse.

Kazungu lost a legal battle to be released from jail, where he is currently serving a 15-year sentence, even though he thought the girl was an adult and older than 28 based on her physical appearance.

Even if she went unnoticed for a while, she was unlucky when her mother learned that she had crept out of the house on January 29, 2017.

In court, the mother stated that her daughter "broke a window to gain access into the house after escaping from home and returning late at night."

When the mother found out, her daughter would hide in the jungle during the day and spend the night at Kazungu's residence. BBB, the victim's father, corroborated all of this when he stated that when AAA was questioned about where she had been spending her nights, the girl confessed that she was staying at the appellant's house, where they would have sex.

The dad prayed for forgiveness when he (BBB) confronted the appellant and questioned why he was having sex with his minor daughter.

In addition, the girl acknowledged that she had had several sex acts with the guy. In 2017, the father brought the man's defilement charges before a magistrate's court after reporting the incident to the neighborhood police station.

On various dates between December 31, 2016, and January 29, 2017, it was stated that he defiled the 16-year-old girl.

The trial court found Kazungu guilty and sentenced him to 15 years in jail notwithstanding his sworn denial of the charges in light of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense.

AAA stated during her deposition that she was friends with Kazungu and that she freely agreed to become his girlfriend.

She informed the court that she would frequently sneak out of her house in December 2016 and January 2017 to go to the appellant's place, where they would have intercourse.

He described in his defense how he was detained and brought before the court on an unrelated accusation. But he was found guilty. He filed an appeal with the High Court, which rejected his arguments on March 21, 2021.

He filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal, claiming that he had consentingly engaged in sexual relations with the girl while having a reasonable belief that she was of legal age.

He contested the provided copy of the birth certificate, claiming it was not authentic and could not be relied upon.

Additionally, he asserted that there were no available components to support a case of defilement, which included evidence of penetration and broken hymen.

In his testimony, he made use of the clinical officer's declaration to the court that AAA's vagina was free of tears or bruises.

The verdict states that the appellant contends that other activities, such as "riding a bicycle, doing jobs, or inserting fingers," may have contributed to the missing hymen and that her hymen were not damaged as a result of penetration.

His objections, however, were dismissed by the judges hearing the case, who stated that since he did not bring up the issue of age during the trial, they could not consider it.

The prosecution presented evidence of AAA's age and her mother's age, which the court accepted as sufficient proof of the offense of defilement.

"...the trial court and the High Court did not address the age issue in any way during the initial appeal."

"We have read the entire record. At no point during the trial did the appellant bring up the matter. Had he done so, the trial magistrate would have had the opportunity to review, analyze, and provide a decision based on it.

The opportunity passed without it being brought up during the trial. The appellant never had a good basis to think that AAA was older than eighteen.

This ruling states that the ground of appeal is dismissed since it is not valid.

"We have reviewed the entire record and the grounds for appeal presented, and we conclude that none of them have any merit. The ruling dated March 8, 2024 states that "the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed."