https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8834
The application was allowed because the record did not show that the trial court considered the applicant's remand custody period, and section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code makes that consideration mandatory; therefore the sentence had to run from the date of arrest.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 8834 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: CRAIG RANDALL PHILANDER; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E08 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Sentence Review
- Outcome
- Application allowed
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs, Credit for Time Spent in Custody, Revision of Sentence, Concurrent Sentencing
- 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
CRAIG RANDALL PHILANDER
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not accounting for time spent in remand custody.
- 2 Whether the sentence required revision to reflect pre-sentence custody time.
Ratio Decidendi
The application was allowed because the record did not show that the trial court considered the applicant's remand custody period, and section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code makes that consideration mandatory; therefore the sentence had to run from the date of arrest.
Court Disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the trial court shall run from 16th June 2022, the date of the applicant’s arrest, pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E085 OF 2026** CRAIG RANDALL PHILANDER…....…..…..…………..………APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………………….....…...RESPONDENT **RULING.** 1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs contrary to section 4(a)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act No. 4 of 1994. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 50 million in default to serve one-year imprisonment. In addition he was sentenced to serve seven years imprisonment to run concurrently. 2. The applicant has now filed an application seeking sentence review. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time spent in remand custody during the computation of his sentence. 3. The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to consider 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**. 4. It is therefore mandatory for a sentencing court to take into account the period an accused person has spent in custody before sentence, unless otherwise precluded by law. 5. I have perused the original record and note that the trial court considered the Applicant's mitigation before imposing sentence. However, the court did not expressly indicate that it had taken into account the period spent in remand custody. 6. The Applicant was arrested on 16th June 2022 and remained in custody throughout the trial until his conviction on 9th May 2025. He therefore spent two (2) years, ten (10) months and twenty-three (23) days in remand custody. There is no indication on the record that this period was considered in computing the sentence imposed. 7. In the premises, the application is allowed. The sentence imposed by the trial court shall be run from 16th June 2022, the date of the applicant’s arrest pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 24th day of June 2026.** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Applicant Present Otiya for the Respondent Karimi Court Assistant.