https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12088
The Court found that the trial court did not expressly or tacitly account for the Applicant’s pre-sentence custody, which amounted to non-compliance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Applicant was therefore entitled to credit for 943 days, equivalent to two years seven months and three days,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 12088 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: JOEL OCHIENG JUMA; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E113 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Post Sentence Ruling on Section 333(2) Credit for Pre Sentence Custody
- Outcome
- Application allowed
- Judges
- ["PJO Otieno"]
- Legal Topics
- Pre Sentence Custody Credit, Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, Defilement Sentencing, Remand Time Calculation
- 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
JOEL OCHIENG JUMA
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Post Sentence Ruling on Section 333(2) Credit for Pre Sentence Custody
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Applicant was entitled to have pre-sentence custody time taken into account under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory sentencing requirement to consider time spent in custody.
- 3 How much custody time should be credited against the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the trial court did not expressly or tacitly account for the Applicant’s pre-sentence custody, which amounted to non-compliance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Applicant was therefore entitled to credit for 943 days, equivalent to two years seven months and three days, against his sentence.
Court Disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- The prison authorities shall credit the Applicant with two years seven months and three days being the period spent in remand custody prior to conviction and sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMABAY** **MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. E113 OF 2025** **JOEL OCHIENG JUMA…….....…………….……..……..…..…………....…….……APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………..........….………..RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Before the Court is the Applicant's undated Notice of Motion seeking the benefit conferred under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by having the period spent in custody prior to the imposition of sentence taken into account in computation so that the sentence imposed is proportionately reduced by the period. 2. In her oral response to the application and submissions by the applicant, the learned counsel for the Respondent, Ms. Oduor, indicated that the Respondent does not oppose the application. 3. The record shows that the applicant was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. Upon conviction, he was sentenced, on 19th October 2021, to serve twenty (20) years' imprisonment term. 4. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code imposes a mandatory obligation upon a sentencing court to take into account the period an accused person has spent in custody prior to sentencing. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that an offender does not serve a period of imprisonment in excess of that lawfully intended by the sentencing court. 5. The record shows that the Applicant was arrested on 2nd November 2018 and remained in custody until 29th January 2019, when he was released on bond, having spent eighty-nine (89) days in remand custody. Thereafter, the Applicant failed to attend court, prompting the trial court to issue a warrant for his arrest. The proceedings further show that he was re-arrested and was back in custody on 18th June 2019. From that date, he remained in continuous custody until his conviction and sentencing on 19.10.2021 for that second remand incarceration, he served a period of 854 days. In the circumstances, the period of incarceration before sentence adds to a period of 943 days, two (2) years seven months and three days. 6. A perusal of the sentencing proceedings does not reveal that the trial court expressly or tacitly took into account the period the Applicant had spent in pre-sentence custody. 7. The omission by the trial court to account for the period the Applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing amounted to non-compliance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and has the effect of having the applicant serve a greater and longer period than imposed. The Applicant is therefore entitled to the benefit of that provision. 8. Accordingly, in computing the Applicant's sentence the prison must give him credit of two years seven months and three days being the period, he spent in remand custody pending conviction and sentence. 9. It is so ordered. Dated, signed and delivered at Lodwar this 30th day of July 2026 Patrick J O Otieno Judge