Mohammud v Republic (Criminal Revision E026 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8832 (KLR) (16 June 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the original sentencing record showed the trial court considered mitigation and specifically accounted for one year spent in remand custody before imposing a three-year sentence; therefore there was no basis for revision.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 8832 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: IFA MOHAMMUD; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E026 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision of Sentence / Ruling on Application for Revision
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Revision of Sentence, Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, Remand Custody Credit, Mitigation
- 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
IFA MOHAMMUD
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision of Sentence / Ruling on Application for Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to account for the applicant's time spent in remand custody when sentencing.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed warranted revision.
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed because the original sentencing record showed the trial court considered mitigation and specifically accounted for one year spent in remand custody before imposing a three-year sentence; therefore there was no basis for revision.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- Application dismissed for lack of merit.
- Sentence left undisturbed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E026 OF 2026** IFA MOHAMMUD…………....…..…..…………..………APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………………………………..…...RESPONDENT **RULING.** 1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of Burglary contrary to Section 304 (2) of the Penal Code. She was sentenced to serve three (3) years imprisonment. She has now filed an application seeking revision of sentence. 2. She filed an affidavit in support of his motion. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time she spent in remand custody during the computation of her sentence. 3. The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already spent in custody. The duty to take in account the period an accused person had remained in custody in sentencing under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is couched in mandatory terms was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in **Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs. Republic [2018] eKLR** and **Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR** and more recently in the High Court case of **Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR**. 4. It is therefore clear that it is mandatory that the period which an accused has been held in custody prior to being sentenced be taken into account in meting out the sentence where it is not hindered by other provisions of the law. 5. I have perused the original record and I find the trial court considered the mitigation before sentencing the applicant. The court further noted that the time the accused had spent one year in remand custody which the court considered. The court pointed out that the law provides for a custodial sentence of a maximum of ten (10) years. However, in consideration of the mitigation and the one year spent in remand custody, she was sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment. 6. The upshot of the above is that the application is dismissed for lacking in merit. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 16th day of June 2026.** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Applicant Present Mutuma for the Respondent Karimi Court Assistant.