[2024] KEHC 1758 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to have the period spent in pre-sentence custody taken into account when computing his sentence, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and as affirmed in Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR. The applicant had been in custody since 22nd...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 1758 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ken Gitonga Alias John Mwenda Muthiora; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E297 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
- Outcome
- sentence revised to account for pre-sentence custody
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Pre Sentence Custody, Concurrent Sentences, False Pretences, Forgery, Personation
- 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
Ken Gitonga Alias John Mwenda Muthiora
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in pre-sentence custody when imposing sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant's sentence should be revised to account for time already served in custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was entitled to have the period spent in pre-sentence custody taken into account when computing his sentence, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and as affirmed in Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR. The applicant had been in custody since 22nd August 2022, and the trial court failed to expressly consider this period. The High Court therefore ordered that the sentences imposed (2 and 3 years, to run concurrently) be computed from the date of arrest, ensuring compliance with the statutory and jurisprudential requirements for fair sentencing.
Court Disposition
sentence revised to account for pre-sentence custody
Orders
- The term of 2 and 3 years imposed on the applicant shall be computed from 22nd August, 2022 when he was arrested.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Gitonga alias John Mwenda Muthiora v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Revision E297 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1758 (KLR) (22 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1758 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Revision E297 of 2023
TW Cherere, J
February 22, 2024
Between
Ken Gitonga Alias John Mwenda Muthiora
Applicant
and
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Ruling
1. Applicant was charged and convicted on four counts namely Obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya; Forgery contrary to section 349; Personation contrary to Section 382 and Conspiracy to defraud contrary to Section 317 of the same Act.
2. After a full ytrial, Applicant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as follows:1. Counts 1 and 2 to serve 3 years imprisonment2. Counts 3 and 4 to serve 2 years imprisonment3. Sentences to run concurrently
3. Applicant seeks a review of the sentence on the ground that the one-year period he spent in custody was not considered when he was sentenced.
4. The Court of Appeal held in the case of Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR that: -“By proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, where a person sentenced has been held in custody prior to such sentence, the sentence shall take into account of the period spent in custody. Ombija J, who sentenced the appellant did not specifically state that he had taken into account the 9 years period that the appellant had been in custody. The appellant told us that as at 22nd September 2009 he had been in custody for 10 years and one month. We think that all these incidents ought to have been taken into account in assessing sentence. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the appellant has been sufficiently punished. We therefore allow this appeal and reduce the sentence to the period that the appellant has already served. He is accordingly to be set free forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.”
5. Applicant was arrested on 22nd August, 2022 and remained in custody throughout the trial.
6. It is therefore ordered that the term of 2 and 3 years imposed on the Applicant shall be computed from 22nd August, 2022 when he was arrested.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneApplicant - Present in personFor DPP - Ms. Rita (PC-1)