[2020] KEHC 4511 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was not in custody pending trial for the subject case but was instead serving sentences for other convictions during the relevant period. This fact had already been established in a previous ruling by Justice L. Kimaru, who found that the applicant had misled the court regarding...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 4511 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Kegocha Magige; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 288 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Guidelines, Time Spent in Custody, Abuse of Process
- 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
James Kegocha Magige
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in custody prior to conviction considered in his sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process due to prior determination of the same issue.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was not in custody pending trial for the subject case but was instead serving sentences for other convictions during the relevant period. This fact had already been established in a previous ruling by Justice L. Kimaru, who found that the applicant had misled the court regarding his custodial status. As such, the applicant was not entitled to benefit from section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the period claimed. The court held that the application was an abuse of process, as the issue had already been conclusively determined, and dismissed the application for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application filed on 30.10.2019 is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 288 OF 2019
JAMES KEGOCHA MAGIGE...... ACCUSED
VERSUS
REPUBLIC .................................................DPP
RULING
The applicant JAMES KEGOCHA MAGIGE filed this application on 30. 10. 2019 seeking orders under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code so that the period he spent in custody pending determination of his case be considered in his sentence. The applicant has submitted that he had been in custody from 19. 2.2016. That he had 2 different cases, being Criminal case number 344/2014 in which he was sentenced on 18. 4.2017, and criminal case number 2042/2014 on which he was sentenced on 8. 4.2019. This particular application relates to yet another case number Cr. 859/2016 (Kibera).
In the affidavit in support of this application, at paragraph 4, the applicant has deponed that he remained in custody from the date of arrest on 19. 2.2016 to date of conviction on 26. 8.2019, when he was sentenced to serve a term of 7 years’ imprisonment.
The counsel for the state, Ms. Kabithi, basically stated that the state would not oppose the application if indeed the court did not give consideration to the period spent in custody pending trial.
I have considered the provisions under which this application has been brought section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, states;
“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 date on which it is pronounced, except where otherwise provided by this code.
Provided that where the person sentenced under section 5(i) has prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence, shall take account of the period spent in custody.”
Clearly, the above provision dictates that the period spent in custody ought to be accounted for in the sentence unless there is a contrary provision. The issue for determination herein, is however, whether the applicant’s case qualifies for consideration under this provision. There is no doubt as to the fact that applicant has face a plethora of cases at the magistrate’s courts at Milimani and Kibera Law courts. There is Kibera chief Magistrates Criminal case number 859/2016, the subject matter of this application. There is also Kibera Chief Magistrate’s criminal case number 2042/2014. He also faced Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s court criminal cases number 344/2013 and 305/2016 (Both Milimani). These last 2 are contained in the ruling made pursuant to his Revision application number 232/2019 and 288/2019 (Hon. Justice L. Kimaru).
I have perused and considered the ruling of the Hon. Justice L. Kimaru dated 19. 12. 2019. In the said application, the applicant had sought for 2 orders. First, the order to consolidate his criminal revision applications numbers 232/2019 and 288/2019 arising from the lower court cases numbers 2042/2014 (Kibera) and 859/2016 (Kibera), our instant case. The second order the applicant sought were that the periods he spent in custody be considered and accounted for in the sentences meted out in the 2 cases.
The learned Judge, in his considered ruling, held that the applicant had in fact been in prison serving sentences in respect of the 2 cases at Milimani, being criminal 344/2013 and criminal 305/2016. He was not therefore in custody awaiting trials in the 2 cases of Kibera law courts (Including the subject of this application. While dismissing the applicant’s consolidated applications (Revision 232 and 288/2019), the Honourable Judge noted that the applicant had clearly misled the court and told a blatant lie.
The applicant, has again made the same application before this court. Just as held by the Honourable Justice Kimaru in the ruling of 19. 12. 2019, the truth is that the applicant was serving sentence and NOT in custody pending determination of this case. I am not in the circumstances convinced that the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in his favour. This application to say the least, is an abuse of the process of the court being on an issue already determined by this court. I do not find any merit in this application of the applicant filed herein on 30. 10. 2019. I hereby dismiss the same. It is so ordered.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
12. 6.2020
Court:
Ruling read out in open court in presence of the applicant and Ms. Chege for the state.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
12. 6.2020