[2025] KEHC 164 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 164 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court did not comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as there was no evidence that the period the applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing was considered. The applicant was arrested on 17 March 2019 and remained in remand throughout the trial until sentencing. The law requires that the sentence imposed should commence from the date of arrest if the accused was in custody, unless otherwise provided. The court held that it is mandatory to consider the period spent in custody, and therefore, the applicant's sentence should be recalculated to commence from the date of arrest. The application for sentence review was allowed, and the...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 164 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: CA; Respondent: DPP
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 January 2025
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E061 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Sentence Review Ruling
Outcome
Application allowed. Sentence to run from date of arrest.
Judges
S Mbungi
Legal Topics
Sentence Review, Time Spent in Custody, Application of Section 333 2 Cpc
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentence Review Time Spent in Custody Application of Section 333 2 Cpc

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CA

Applicant

DPP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Sentence Review Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in sentencing the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the period spent in custody prior to sentencing should be considered in the applicant's sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court did not comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as there was no evidence that the period the applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing was considered. The applicant was arrested on 17 March 2019 and remained in remand throughout the trial until sentencing. The law requires that the sentence imposed should commence from the date of arrest if the accused was in custody, unless otherwise provided. The court held that it is mandatory to consider the period spent in custody, and therefore, the applicant's sentence should be recalculated to commence from the date of arrest. The application for sentence review was allowed, and the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Sentence to run from date of arrest.

Orders

  • The sentence of 10 years' imprisonment shall commence from 17 March 2019 pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • Right of appeal within 14 days explained to the applicant.