[2023] KEHC 22235 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 22235 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's request for further relief under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was without merit because the issue had already been conclusively addressed during the appeal. The appellate court had ordered that the applicant's sentence would run from the date of arraignment,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 22235 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Richard Nyakundi Bonkoko; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E161 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Post Conviction Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
A. Ong’injo
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Defilement, Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code, Credit for Time Served
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Defilement Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code Credit for Time Served

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Nyakundi Bonkoko

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Post Conviction Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to further relief under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the computation of his sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's request for release to care for the complainant's child born as a result of the offence has any legal merit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's request for further relief under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was without merit because the issue had already been conclusively addressed during the appeal. The appellate court had ordered that the applicant's sentence would run from the date of arraignment, thereby crediting him for time spent in custody. The court also found the applicant's argument that he should be released to care for the complainant's child, who was born as a result of the offence, to be sarcastic and despicable, and not a valid ground for release. Accordingly, the application was disallowed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is disallowed.