[2023] KEHC 24327 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 24327 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant's request for consideration of time spent in custody could not be granted because he failed to provide essential information, such as the dates of arrest, conviction, and sentencing, or any documentary evidence to support his claim that he was in custody for 19 months. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 24327 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Enock Olando Aston; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E061 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Time Spent in Custody, Defilement Offence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Time Spent in Custody Defilement Offence

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enock Olando Aston

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

  1. 1 Whether the trial court considered the period spent in custody by the applicant as required under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence to support his claim for consideration of time spent in custody.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's request for consideration of time spent in custody could not be granted because he failed to provide essential information, such as the dates of arrest, conviction, and sentencing, or any documentary evidence to support his claim that he was in custody for 19 months. The court emphasized that it cannot speculate on facts not placed before it and that the burden was on the applicant to provide sufficient material to enable the court to make a determination under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of supporting evidence, with liberty to file a fresh application accompanied by the necessary...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 23rd June 2023 is dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
  • The applicant is at liberty to file a fresh application with supporting proceedings.