[2021] KEHC 6376 (KLR)
The High Court found that the lower court's sentencing proceedings did not demonstrate that the period the applicant spent in pre-sentence custody was considered, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that failure to account for this period was an error, and therefore allowed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6376 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Julius Maina Kariuki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 72 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Credit for Time Served, Grievous Harm, Penal Code Section 234
- 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
Julius Maina Kariuki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in pre-sentence custody deducted from his sentence.
- 2 Whether the trial court considered the period spent in custody when passing sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the lower court's sentencing proceedings did not demonstrate that the period the applicant spent in pre-sentence custody was considered, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that failure to account for this period was an error, and therefore allowed the application. The applicant's sentence was ordered to be recalculated so that the 5-year term imposed by the lower court would be reduced by the 1 year and 4 months he had already spent in custody awaiting trial. This ensures compliance with statutory requirements and upholds the applicant's rights under the law.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant shall serve the term of 5 years’ imprisonment as ordered by the lower court less the period of 1 year 4 months spent in custody awaiting determination of his case.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL REVISION 72OF 2019
JULIUS MAINA KARIUKI..............................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC....................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant JULIUS MAINA KARIUKI has urged this court by way of an application dated 8. 3.2019 and filed herein on 18. 3.2019, that this court be pleased to review his sentence so as to consider and take into account the period he spent in custody awaiting determination of his case of 1 year and 4 months. Before the lower court, he was charged with the offence of grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code, he was convicted and sentenced to serve 5 years’ imprisonment on 15. 8.2018.
In response to the application, counsel for the Respondent opposed the same on grounds that the trial magistrate already took into account the applicant’s prayers in the sentence passed. It was noted that the applicant was given a lenient sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment whereas the law provided for life imprisonment for the offence.
I have considered the application of the applicant, and the objection by the Respondent. The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code states;
“Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody”
I have considered the proceedings of the lower court, especially the sentencing proceedings of 1. 8.2018. It is not shown whether the court took into account the period the applicant had taken in custody awaiting conclusion of his cases which it ought to have done. It is for this reason that I find merit in this application. I accordingly allow the same and order that the applicant do serve the term of 5 years’ imprisonment as ordered by the lower court less the period of 1 year 4 months he remained remanded in custody awaiting determination of his case. Orders accordingly.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
9. 6.2021.
Court:
Ruling read out in open court (on-line) in presence of the applicant (Ruiru prison), and Ms. Kibathi for the state.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
9. 6.2021.
‘O’
FROM: HIGH COURT APPELLATE SIDE
TO: GK. RUIRU
INFO: PHQ.
9TH JUNE 2021
HCCR REV. NO. 72 OF 2019
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 72OF 2019 ORIGINATING FROM THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT MAKADARA CRIMINAL CASE NO. 704 OF 2017. APPLICANT’S JULIUS MAINA KARIUKI NWP/619/018/LSI ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE SAME AND ORDER THAT THE APPLICANT DO SERVE THE TERM OF 5 YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT AS ORDERED BY THE LOWER COURT LESS THE PERIOD OF 1 YEAR 4 MONTHS HE REMAINED REMANDED IN CUSTODY AWAITING DETERMINATION OF HIS CASE. ORDERS ACCORDINGLY.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR