[2025] KEHC 8672 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8672 (KLR)

The court found that the trial magistrate erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in pretrial custody, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines. The applicant was in custody from 3rd January 2021 to 11th October 2023, a period of two years and nine months, which should have been deducted from the 7-year sentence imposed. The failure to do so resulted in an unlawful and excessive sentence. The court therefore allowed the application, ordered that the period already served be subtracted from the sentence, and revised the sentence accordingly.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8672 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Danson Mwaura Babu; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Murang'a
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 June 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E030 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Outcome
application allowed; sentence revised
Judges
TW Ouya
Legal Topics
Sentencing Revision, Pretrial Custody Credit, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2, Kidnapping Offence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentencing Revision Pretrial Custody Credit Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2 Kidnapping Offence

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danson Mwaura Babu

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to take into account the period the applicant spent in pretrial custody when passing sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in custody deducted from the sentence imposed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial magistrate erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in pretrial custody, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines. The applicant was in custody from 3rd January 2021 to 11th October 2023, a period of two years and nine months, which should have been deducted from the 7-year sentence imposed. The failure to do so resulted in an unlawful and excessive sentence. The court therefore allowed the application, ordered that the period already served be subtracted from the sentence, and revised the sentence accordingly.

Court Disposition

application allowed; sentence revised

Orders

  • The period served in custody from 3rd January 2021 to 11th October 2023 shall be subtracted from the 7 years sentence imposed on the applicant.
  • The sentence is revised accordingly.