[2022] KEHC 2027 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 2027 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant had raised the issue of his pretrial custody during mitigation, the trial court did not indicate whether it considered the 2 years spent in custody when passing sentence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that such period must be taken into account....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 2027 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Albert Esige Memba; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 51 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Outcome
application allowed; sentence revised
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Sentencing Revision, Pretrial Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Revision Pretrial Custody Credit Sexual Offences Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Esige Memba

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision

  1. 1 Whether the period of 2 years spent in pretrial custody by the applicant should be considered and deducted from the sentence imposed by the trial court.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to expressly account for the pretrial custody period in sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant had raised the issue of his pretrial custody during mitigation, the trial court did not indicate whether it considered the 2 years spent in custody when passing sentence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that such period must be taken into account. The failure to do so constituted an error, and the High Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to correct the sentence by deducting the 2 years spent in custody from the 10-year imprisonment term imposed by the trial court.

Court Disposition

application allowed; sentence revised

Orders

  • The applicant shall serve an imprisonment term of 10 years less the period of 2 years he remained in custody awaiting the determination of his trial.
  • The sentence of the trial court is revised accordingly.