https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8913

Muli v Republic (Miscellaneous Application E082 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8913 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8913 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Miscellaneous Application E082 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J June 23, 2026 Between Clinton Kasyoki Muli Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1)(a) as read with 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act in Sexual Offences Case No. 15 of 2015. He was sentenced to serve a life sentence. Upon appeal, his sentence was reviewed to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment, which was computed from 20th February 2018 by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2018. 2.He has now filed an application seeking revision of sentence to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3.He filed an affidavit in support of his petition. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time he spent in remand custody during the computation of sentence. Additionally, he sought a probationary sentence should the eventual computation result into a balance of three (3) years or less. 4.I have considered the application, the affidavit in support and the applicable law. I have also considered the trial court record. The issue for consideration is whether the trial court considered the time the applicant spent in remand custody. 5.The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already spent in custody. The duty to take in account the period an accused person had remained in custody in sentencing under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is couched in mandatory terms was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs. Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR and more recently in the High Court case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR. 6.From the record, it is evident that the Applicant was admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial. He was therefore not in continuous custody in relation to the present matter. Further, the lower court record indicates that the Applicant absconded bond leading to his arrest, cancellation of bond and the Applicant being remanded in custody. Further, this court in reviewing his sentence to twenty-five years specifically indicated when the sentence should start running and for the reasons advanced thereon. 7.In view of the foregoing, the application dismissed for lack of merit.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGE