[2025] KEHC 5321 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5321 (KLR)

The court found that the trial magistrate failed to comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not deducting the period the applicant spent in remand custody from the sentence imposed. The law and sentencing policy guidelines obligate courts to consider time spent in custody to avoid excessive and disproportionate punishment. The applicant was arrested on 24th September 2020 and convicted on 28th September 2022, spending one year and six months in custody prior to sentencing. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) of the Constitution, held that the applicant is legally entitled to have the sentence commence from the date of arrest....

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5321 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kennedy Atsango; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Case Number
Criminal Revision E080 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
RN Nyakundi
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Time Spent in Custody, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Sexual Offences, Rights of Accused
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Time Spent in Custody Supervisory Jurisdiction Sexual Offences Rights of Accused

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kennedy Atsango

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to account for time spent in custody.
  2. 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody prior to sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial magistrate failed to comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not deducting the period the applicant spent in remand custody from the sentence imposed. The law and sentencing policy guidelines obligate courts to consider time spent in custody to avoid excessive and disproportionate punishment. The applicant was arrested on 24th September 2020 and convicted on 28th September 2022, spending one year and six months in custody prior to sentencing. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) of the Constitution, held that the applicant is legally entitled to have the sentence commence from the date of arrest....

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The committal warrant to prison shall be amended to reflect that the sentence commences from the date of arrest, 24th September 2020.
  • The applicant's time spent in custody prior to sentencing shall be taken into account in computing the sentence.