[2021] KEHC 1691 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 1691 (KLR)

The court declined to grant the orders sought by the applicant because he failed to attach any proceedings or material evidence to support his claim that the period spent in remand custody was not considered by the trial court. Without such material before the court, it could not determine whether the applicant was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 1691 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Dickson Namiti Masibo; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E107 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Remand Period Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Remand Period, Sexual Offences, Section 333 2 Cpc
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Remand Period Sexual Offences Section 333 2 Cpc

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dickson Namiti Masibo

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Remand Period Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

  1. 1 Whether the period spent in remand custody by the applicant should be considered in sentencing as per Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to grant the orders sought by the applicant because he failed to attach any proceedings or material evidence to support his claim that the period spent in remand custody was not considered by the trial court. Without such material before the court, it could not determine whether the applicant was entitled to have the remand period considered under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was therefore dismissed for want of supporting material.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for want of material before the court.
  • File closed.