[2022] KEHC 16227 (KLR)
The trial court failed to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody, amounting to 14 months and 20 days, when passing sentence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that such period must be taken into account. The High Court, exercising its supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 16227 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mammud Gababa Dido; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E269 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Sentence revised to deduct 14 months and 20 days spent in remand custody from the original sentence.
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Sentence Review
- 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
Mammud Gababa Dido
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence.
- 2 Whether the High Court should revise the sentence to account for time spent in remand custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court failed to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody, amounting to 14 months and 20 days, when passing sentence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that such period must be taken into account. The High Court, exercising its supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction, found this omission to be an error warranting intervention. Consequently, the applicant's sentence was revised to deduct the period spent in remand custody from the total sentence imposed.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Sentence revised to deduct 14 months and 20 days spent in remand custody from the original sentence.
Orders
- The applicant shall serve the sentence imposed less fourteen (14) months and twenty (20) days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Dido v Republic (Criminal Revision E269 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 16227 (KLR) (7 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16227 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Voi
Criminal Revision E269 of 2022
JN Onyiego, J
December 7, 2022
Between
Mammud Gababa Dido
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 506 of 2018 of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Taveta)
Ruling
1. The applicant was arraigned before the Principal Magistrate’s Court Taveta Law Court on 25. 9.2018 facing the charge of causing grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal. Particulars are that on the 9. 9.2018 at around 1100hours at Moya Moya village in Taveta Sub-County within Taita Taveta County intentionally did grievous harm to Moses Lerungu Jumapili.
2. Having returned a plea of not guilty, the matter proceeded to full hearing. The court convicted and sentenced the applicant on 21. 2.20 to 5 years imprisonment. Subsequently, the applicant moved to this court on 23. 8.2022 vide a notice of motion seeking review of sentence on grounds that the trial court did not take into account the period spent in remand custody. The state did not oppose the application as Mr. Sirma prosecution counsel conceded that the court did not consider the period the Applicant had spent in remand. I have considered the lower court record, application herein and oral submissions by both parties. Under article 165 (6) and (7) of the Constitution, this court has supervisory powers to oversee subordinate courts, Tribunals and any person or body authority exercising quasi judicial function or authority. Equally, under section 362 and 364 of the CPC, the High Court has powers to call for and determine the record of any criminal proceedings so as to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, propriety of any sentence passed or order made, and regularity of proceedings of such subordinate court. I am alive to the fact that sentencing is at the discretion of the trial court and the High Court can only intervene if it is illegal, excessive or generally the trial court applied wrong principles or failed to apply correct principles in arriving at its determination.
3. In this case, there is evidence that the Applicant was released on bond on September 26, 2018 up to December 6, 2018 when it was cancelled. He therefore remained in custody from December 6, 2018 up to 21st February, 20 when he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. Under section 333(2) of the CPC, the trial court ought to have taken into consideration the period spent in remand custody making a total of 14 months and 20 days which should be considered in computing sentence. Accordingly, the application is allowed as prayed and the applicant shall serve the sentence imposed less fourteen (14) months and twenty (20) days.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022. …………………HON. J. ONYIEGOJUDGE