The Sexual Offences Act recommends imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years for those found guilty of incest.
Parents often open their homes to relatives. Children spend holidays with cousins, visit uncles and aunts, and sometimes stay in homes where adults are trusted.
Yet the familiarity and trust that come with family relationships can also leave teenagers vulnerable to sexual exploitation by relatives.
In Narok, a 19-year-old girl and her maternal uncle found themselves in court over an incest case after an alleged sexual relationship.
The uncle, Mr SNK, pleaded guilty to incest and received three years in prison, while the girl was placed on probation for the same period. The case returned to court after Mr SNK challenged a separate conviction that had earned him 15 years for allegedly exposing her to HIV.
The case began with a report to police on October 29, 2020. The complainant’s mother said her daughter had been having relations with her maternal uncle, who was HIV positive and under antiretroviral (ARV) treatment.
MW was 19, and therefore an adult under the law. The High Court identified her only by her initials to protect her identity. Court papers show that her maternal uncle was staying at their home in Narok. It was during this period that the two had a sexual relationship, which resulted in a pregnancy. The uncle had disclosed his HIV status to MW’s mother.
The prosecution told the court that the relationship took place between August 30 and October 11, 2020. The uncle faced charges of incest and deliberate transmission of HIV.
The 19-year-old was charged separately with incest under Section 21 of the Sexual Offences Act. The Sexual Offences Act recommends imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years for those found guilty of incest.
The HIV charge alleged that, during that period, Mr SNK knowingly and willfully had unprotected sex with MW, knowing this was likely to expose her to infection.
The uncle appealed the 15-year sentence for deliberate transmission of HIV, arguing that prosecutors had not proved the offence. He also said the two imprisonment sentences should have run concurrently because the charges arose from the same relationship and period.
Prosecutors relied on the evidence of Senior Sergeant Jackline Kemunto, the case investigating officer.
Ms Kemunto said she escorted the uncle and MW to hospital. He tested HIV positive, while MW tested negative. She produced medical and laboratory records relating to his status. The prosecution called no other witness.
The uncle argued that the investigating officer had not witnessed the encounters and could not say whether a condom was used. He faulted prosecutors for not calling MW or producing pregnancy records and DNA evidence.
In a judgment delivered on October 23, 2026, Justice Charles Kariuki allowed the appeal. The court noted that the guilty plea to the incest charge did not prove every element of the additional charge related to HIV transmission.
“The appellant’s plea of guilty to incest under Count II is relevant to the existence of the sexual relationship,” the judge said. “However, that plea does not automatically establish every additional element of Count III (about HIV transmission).”
Don’t assume blood ties
The case raises a question for family relationships and protection of teenage children. Many teenagers struggle with hormonal and emotional changes, curiosity and a growing desire for independence. Without proper guidance, they may not be able to recognise unhealthy sexual relationships. Parents must help them understand their changing bodies, establish boundaries and make informed decisions about sex.
Paulyne Kariru, a counselling psychologist, says parents should not assume that blood ties guarantee safety in homes. “Just because somebody is your brother, cousin, or so-and-so within the family doesn’t qualify them to be in your children’s space,” she says.
She urges parents to stop over-trusting and be deliberate about who has access to children at home and during visits. They should consider everyone living in or visiting the household.
“You might trust your sister, for example, but you don’t know much about her son. You don’t know much about her husband,” Ms Kariru says.
Parents need not send children for sleepovers or holiday visits to satisfy family expectations. Gatherings together or supervised visits offer safer ways to maintain relationships.
At home, she says parents should set clear rules about privacy, sleeping arrangements and supervision. Ms Kariru warns against making children share beds with adult relatives or cousins simply because they are family.
“Your house is not a walk-in, walk-out space,” she says, adding that relatives must understand that parents set the rules and retain responsibility for their children.
But safeguards also depend on listening. Ms Kariru says parents should watch for changes in how children behave around relatives. A child who once eagerly approached an uncle may become withdrawn, fearful or secretive, while others may continue seeking contact with the person. Such behaviour varies from child to child and is not, on its own, proof of abuse. Parents should ask open questions and give children room to express any discomfort.
“Be very observant and ask questions,” she says. "Ask how the visit went and whether anything made the child uneasy.” Such changes warrant attention but are not proof of abuse.
Ms Kariru urges parents to teach children about safe and unsafe touch, bodily autonomy and the right to refuse unwanted contact, whoever the person is.
Children should also know that an adult asking them to keep secrets about touching or a relationship is raising a red flag. She says that children should feel safe disclosing uncomfortable experiences without blame or punishment.
Parents can also explain that a child does not owe any relative physical affection, including hugs. Children should know they can move away, say no and tell a trusted adult if a touch feels uncomfortable. Repeating these conversations as children grow helps make safety rules familiar rather than introducing them only after a concern arises.
Ms Kariru cautions that some children may respond differently to abuse involving relatives. Some children may seek contact secretly. Parents should not rely on one behaviour or assume every child will resist an inappropriate relationship.
Instead, she says parents should pay attention to changes, ask open questions and give children time to speak. A calm response can help a child feel believed and make it easier to seek help.
“Trust needs boundaries. Parents can protect children by controlling access, supervising visits, respecting privacy and teaching bodily autonomy,” she says.
Ms Kariru adds that parents' response matters because in one instance family loyalty can silence children. She says some parents avoid discussing a disclosure because they want to protect a relative or keep a family dispute private.
Parents should listen, take disclosures seriously and prioritise safety over family reputation. Where abuse is suspected, they should seek professional and child-protection support, she says.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
