[2023] KEHC 3108 (KLR)
The court held that, although section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates consideration of time spent in custody, the applicant failed to provide essential supporting documents such as the charge sheet and court proceedings. Without these, the court could not verify the period spent in custody or whether...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3108 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Odhiambo Ayoo alias Koloko; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E122 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Custodial Sentence, Grievous Harm, Pre Sentence Custody, Criminal Procedure Code, Conviction and Sentence
- 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
Joseph Odhiambo Ayoo alias Koloko
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for time spent in custody.
- 2 Whether the application is supported by sufficient documentation to enable the court to consider the request.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, although section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates consideration of time spent in custody, the applicant failed to provide essential supporting documents such as the charge sheet and court proceedings. Without these, the court could not verify the period spent in custody or whether the applicant was released on bond during trial. Consequently, the application was found to be unsupported and was dismissed, with liberty granted to the applicant to file a fresh application accompanied by the necessary documentation.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for sentence review is dismissed.
- The applicant may file a fresh application supported by documents including a charge sheet and court proceedings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
Ayoo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E122 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3108 (KLR) (28 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3108 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E122 of 2022
RE Aburili, J
March 28, 2023
Between
Joseph Odhiambo Ayoo alias Koloko
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant Joseph Odhiambo Ayoo alias Koloko was convicted and sentenced vide Winam Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 375 of 2018 and sentenced to serve seven (7) years imprisonment for the offence of grievous harm. This was on May 8, 2019.
2. He seeks for sentence review taking into account section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the period spent in custody. However, no proceedings in the said matter are annexed for perusal and consideration.
3. I find this application filed on November 23, 2022 not supported. It is hereby dismissed. The Applicant/Convict can file another fresh application supported by documents including a charge sheet and court proceedings for this court to establish the truth on the date of arrest and if he was not released on bond during trial. File closed. I so order.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kisumu this 28thDay of March, 2023R. E. ABURILIJUDGE