[2024] KEHC 13234 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody. The applicant was in custody for one year, one month, and one day prior to sentencing, and this period was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 13234 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Larry King Juniour; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 269 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Malicious Damage to Property
- 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
Larry King Juniour
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody when computing sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have his sentence reduced by the period spent in remand custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody. The applicant was in custody for one year, one month, and one day prior to sentencing, and this period was not deducted from his two-year sentence. The court held that failure to account for this period would amount to a denial of the applicant's statutory right and ordered that the sentence be reduced accordingly.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The sentence imposed on the applicant shall be computed less by one year, one month, and one day spent in remand custody during his trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Juniour v Republic (Criminal Revision 269 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 13234 (KLR) (29 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 13234 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 269 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
October 29, 2024
Between
Larry King Juniour
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted on the offence of malicious damage to property contrary to section 339(1) of the Penal Code. The applicant was sentenced to serve two (2) years imprisonment.
2. He filed an application and an affidavit in support of his motion. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time he spent in remand custody during the computation of sentence.
3. I have considered the application, the affidavit in support and the applicable law. I have also considered the trial court record. The issue for consideration is whether the trial court considered the time the applicant spent in remand custody.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. From the record, the applicant was arrested on 11th August 2023, and was never released on bail or bond until his conviction on 12th September, 2024. He, therefore, spent one (1) year one (1) month and one (1) day in remand custody. From the record, that the period was not factored in during his sentencing.
7. Guided by the law, the court is of the view that the application ought to be considered, as failure to do so would amount to denying the applicant a right due to the failure of the court to discharge an obligation bestowed upon it by law.
8. I thus allow the application and order that the sentence imposed shall be computed less by one (1) year one (1) month and one (1) day spent in remand custody during his trial.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH OCTOBER 2024______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE