https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12324
The trial court failed to show that it considered the applicant's pre-sentence custody as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Because the applicant had been in remand custody for about 3 months and 2 days, the High Court revised the sentence and ordered that the sentence run from the date of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 12324 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hassan Yussuf Shure; Respondent: ODPP
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E128 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Revise Sentence to Credit Time Spent in Custody
- Outcome
- Application allowed; sentence revised
- Judges
- ["JN Njagi"]
- Legal Topics
- Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, Time Spent in Custody, Arson Sentence Computation, Revision of Sentence
- 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
Hassan Yussuf Shure
Applicant
ODPP
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Revise Sentence to Credit Time Spent in Custody
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code when sentencing the applicant
- 2 Whether the custodial period before sentence should be deducted or credited in the sentence computation
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court failed to show that it considered the applicant's pre-sentence custody as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Because the applicant had been in remand custody for about 3 months and 2 days, the High Court revised the sentence and ordered that the sentence run from the date of arrest.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; sentence revised
Orders
- The sentence imposed on the applicant shall commence from 4th January 2025.
- Orders accordingly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **AT GARSEN** **HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.E128 OF 2025** **HASSAN YUSSUF SHURE……………………….………. APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **ODPP………..……………………..…………..…….…….RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The Applicant has filled an undated application seeking for this court to consider the time spent in custody in his sentence of 4 years for the offence of arson. 2. The application is based on the ground that he was arrested on 4/7/2025 and sentenced on 16/10/2025. He asked the court to discount the period of 3 months from his sentence of 4 years. 3. I have perused the lower court’s file in Mpeketoni Principal Magistrates court Criminal Case No.E103 of 2025. The court record indicates that the applicant was arrested on 4/7/2025 and sentenced on 6th October 2025. He was thereby in remand for a period of 3 months and 2 days before he was sentenced. He was in remand custody during the trial. Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a court sentencing an accused person who has been in custody to take into account the time spent in custody. The judgment of the trial court does not indicate whether the trial court took into account the time spent in custody when it sentenced the applicant. The provisions of Section 333(2) are mandatory. I find the trial court to have been in error not to comply with the provisions of the said Section. This court is obligated to correct the error. The applications thereby merited. 4. In view of the foregoing, I order that the sentence imposed on the applicant do commence from the date of his arrest, i.e 4th January 2025. Orders accordingly **Ruling delivered, dated and signed at GARSEN this 28th July 2026.** **J.N.NJAGI** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Mr.Oluoch for Respondent** **Applicant – present in Hindi G.K Prison** Court Assistant – Ms.Rahma