[2022] KEHC 10692 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court expressly stated it had considered the duration the accused had been in custody and referenced the relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the trial court complied with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There was no basis for the High Court to interfere with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 10692 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Philemon Bulemi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 79 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- Application for revision dismissed. No interference with sentence.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Defilement, Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code, Sexual Offences Act, Custodial Sentence, Time Spent in Custody
- 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
Philemon Bulemi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in sentencing the applicant.
- 2 Whether the period spent in custody prior to sentencing was properly considered by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court expressly stated it had considered the duration the accused had been in custody and referenced the relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the trial court complied with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There was no basis for the High Court to interfere with the sentence imposed, as the legal requirement to account for time spent in custody was met. The application for revision was accordingly dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for revision dismissed. No interference with sentence.
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
- No orders as to alteration of the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Bulemi v Republic (Criminal Revision 79 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 10692 (KLR) (Crim) (29 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 10692 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision 79 of 2019
LN Mutende, J
June 29, 2022
Between
Philemon Bulemi
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Philemon Bulemi, the applicant, was tried by Kamau RM for the offence of defilement of a child aged 13 years, convicted and sentenced to serve ten (10) years imprisonment.
2. On the 22nd October, 2021 he filed an application seeking review of the trial court’s sentence on the allegation that it did not comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Codethat provides thus:Subject to the provisions of section 38 of thePenal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.
3. In meting out the sentence, the trial court stated that:“I have considered the duration the accused has been in custody and looked at Section 11 (1) of Sexual Offences Act.”
4. The trial court having complied with the law I have no reason to interfere with the decision of the court.
5. It is so ordered
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022. L. N. MUTENDEJUDGEIn the presence of:ApplicantMr. Kiragu - ODPPCourt Assistant – Mutai