[2020] KEHC 1391 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 1391 (KLR)

The court held that while sentences for offences arising from the same transaction may generally run concurrently, the law expressly prohibits concurrent sentences where fines are imposed, as per the proviso to section 37 of the Penal Code. Since the applicant was sentenced to fines on each of the four counts, with imprisonment in default, the trial court was correct in ordering the sentences to run consecutively. However, the court found that the period of 1 year and 1 week spent in remand custody was not credited in the original sentencing. Pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is entitled to have this period deducted from his overall imprisonment term.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 1391 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David Benjamin Onyango; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 November 2020
Case Number
Criminal Revision 37 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Outcome
Application partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Credit for Time Served
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Credit for Time Served

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Benjamin Onyango

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the four counts should run concurrently or consecutively.
  2. 2 Whether the period of 1 year and 1 week spent in remand custody should be credited to the applicant's sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while sentences for offences arising from the same transaction may generally run concurrently, the law expressly prohibits concurrent sentences where fines are imposed, as per the proviso to section 37 of the Penal Code. Since the applicant was sentenced to fines on each of the four counts, with imprisonment in default, the trial court was correct in ordering the sentences to run consecutively. However, the court found that the period of 1 year and 1 week spent in remand custody was not credited in the original sentencing. Pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is entitled to have this period deducted from his overall imprisonment term.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed.

Orders

  • The sentences imposed on the four counts shall continue to run consecutively as ordered by the trial court.
  • The period of 1 year and 1 week spent by the applicant in remand custody shall be deducted from the overall imprisonment term.