[2025] KEHC 1426 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court expressly acknowledged and considered the period the applicant had spent in custody prior to sentencing, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks. Since the trial court complied with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 1426 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hussein Jumale; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E040 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Revision Application Against Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Revision Jurisdiction, Robbery With Violence, Application of Section 333 2, Trial Court Discretion
- 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
Hussein Jumale
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Revision Application Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court considered the period spent in custody by the applicant when passing sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to further reduction of sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court expressly acknowledged and considered the period the applicant had spent in custody prior to sentencing, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks. Since the trial court complied with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, there was no basis for further revision of the sentence. The application was therefore unmerited and dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed for want of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Jumale v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E040 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 1426 (KLR) (20 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 1426 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Garissa
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E040 of 2024
JN Onyiego, J
February 20, 2025
Between
Hussein Jumale
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being revision application against sentence dated 02-09-2024 delivered by Hon. J. Omwange (PM) Garissa Criminal Case No.1079 of 2021)
Ruling
1. Through a chamber summons 16-12-2024, the applicant seeks that the period spent in custody pending trial be considered.
2. From the record, the applicant was jointly with another charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on the night of 10. 09. 2021 at about 1930hrs at Madogo area, Tana North Sub – county within Tana River County jointly with another not before the court while armed with dangerous weapons namely, knives they robbed Alice Katunga Munyoki of her mobile phone make D- light valued at Kes. 14,500, a handbag valued at Kes. 2200/- which contained cask Kes. 5,000/- all valued at 21,700/- and at the time of the robbery threatened to use actual violence against the said Alice Katunga Munyoki.
3. He also faced a second Count to wit robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on the night of 10. 09. 2021 at about 1930hrs at Madogo area, Tana North Sub – county within Tana River County jointly with another not before the court while armed with dangerous weapons namely, knives they robbed Joseph Mbunge of his mobile phone make Tecno Y-1 valued at Kes. 6,500/- and at the time of the robbery threatened to use actual violence against the said Joseph Mbunge. Upon conclusion of the trial, the court acquitted him of the charge of Robbery and instead convicted him on a lesser charge of stealing and sentenced him to a fine of kes 50, 000/= in default serve 12 months in prison.
4. During the hearing of the application, parties submitted orally whereby the applicant urged that the orders sought in the application be allowed as prayed. On the other hand, Mr. Okemwa, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the orders sought could not issue as the trial court considered time spent in custody when meting out the sentence. He prayed that the application be dismissed for want of merit.
5. The proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates a trial court to consider time already spent in remand custody. The duty to take into 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 the case of Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs Republic [2009] eKLR.
6. It therefore follows that it is mandatory that the period which a convict had been held in custody prior to being sentenced ought to be considered in meting out the sentence.
7. Having perused the record, the applicant herein was convicted and during sentencing, the court noted as follows:‘The court considers mitigation and that each of the convicts as 1st offenders. I note the sentiments of the convicts with regard to payment of the stolen items. The convicts are not remorseful. I have noted that each of the convicts has been in custody since the matter was filed on 13. 09. 2021. ’ Having taken the duration into account, I hereby sentence each of the convicts to pay a fine of Kes. 50,000/- in default 12 months in jail for each count.’
8. From the above statement, I agree with counsel for the respondent that indeed the trial court considered time spent in custody by the applicant. Consequently, I find the application unmerited hence dismiss it.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025J. N. ONYIEGOJUDGE