https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10958

Korir v Republic (Criminal Application E028 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 10958 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10958 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kericho Criminal Application E028 of 2021 JC Mutai, J July 15, 2026 Between Eric Kipngetich Korir Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant filed an undated Application seeking an order that this Court reviews his sentence pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. Subsequently, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to serve eight (8) years' imprisonment. 2.The Applicant contends that although he remained in custody for a period of two (2) years and five (5) months before he was sentenced, that period was not taken into account when the sentence was imposed. He therefore prays that the Court reviews the sentence in accordance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3.Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:“Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code, every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include, the whole of the day on which it was pronounced...Provided that where the person sentenced has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody." Analysis and determination 4.The import of the proviso to section 333(2) is that where an accused person has remained in custody before sentence, the sentencing court is obligated to take that period into account in determining the appropriate sentence. The provision does not necessarily require the court to deduct the period spent in custody arithmetically from the sentence imposed. What is required is that the record demonstrates that the court considered the period spent in remand before arriving at the final sentence. 5.The State opposed the application on the ground that the sentencing court expressly considered the period the Applicant had spent in custody before imposing sentence. 6.I have carefully perused the proceedings and the sentencing remarks of the trial court. At paragraph 11 of the sentencing decision, the court expressly noted that the Applicant had been arrested on 16th February 2021 and had remained in custody for a period of two (2) years and five (5) months. The sentencing court further stated that it had taken that period into account in determining the appropriate sentence. 7.Having expressly considered the period spent in remand custody, the sentencing court complied with the requirements of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court cannot presume that the period was ignored merely because the sentence imposed was eight years' imprisonment. The duty imposed by section 333(2) is one of consideration, and the record clearly demonstrates that the duty was discharged. 8.In the circumstances, I find no error, illegality or omission that would warrant this Court's intervention. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the sentencing court overlooked the period spent in custody or otherwise misapplied section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Orders 9.Accordingly, I find no merit in the Application. The same is hereby dismissed. DELIVERED AT KERICHO ON 15TH JULY 2026CHELANGAT MUTAIJUDGE15/7/2026In the presence of:-Ms. Loice Osoro for the StateEric Kipngetich Korir - ApplicantCourt Assistant – Irene