[2023] KEHC 3425 (KLR)
The court held that the application was not supported because the applicant failed to provide evidence of the period spent in custody, such as the date of arrest or copies of the court proceedings. Without such documentation, the court could not verify or consider the period claimed. The court emphasized that for an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3425 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Fredrick Aketch Anyumba; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E035 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Time Spent in Custody
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Time Spent in Custody, Robbery With Violence, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Fredrick Aketch Anyumba
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Time Spent in Custody
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period of nine months spent in custody by the applicant should be considered and deducted from his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application was not supported because the applicant failed to provide evidence of the period spent in custody, such as the date of arrest or copies of the court proceedings. Without such documentation, the court could not verify or consider the period claimed. The court emphasized that for an application under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to succeed, the applicant must provide sufficient supporting evidence. The application was therefore dismissed, but the applicant was granted liberty to reapply with the necessary documentation.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
- The applicant may reapply with court proceedings attached for reconsideration under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Anyumba v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E035 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3425 (KLR) (13 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3425 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E035 of 2022
RE Aburili, J
April 13, 2023
Between
Fredrick Aketch Anyumba
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant/Convict herein is Fredrick Aketch Anyumba. He was convicted of the offence of Robbery with violence vide Winam Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 807 of 2019 on June 10, 2020 as per the warrant of commitment to prison attached.
2. He was sentenced to serve ten (10) years imprisonment. He now applies that the period of nine (9) months spent in custody be calculated and considered.
3. The Convict does not say when he was arrested and neither did he annex copies of proceedings to his application for consideration by this court.
4. I find this application not supported. It is hereby dismissed.
5. The Applicant can however apply afresh, attaching court proceedings for reconsideration of his application under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This file is hereby closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 13THDAY OF APRIL, 2023R. E. ABURILIJUDGE