[2025] KEHC 9376 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9376 (KLR)

The court found that the issue of whether the period spent in remand custody should be credited to the applicant's sentence had already been considered and determined by the High Court on first appeal. In that appeal, the sentence was reduced from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment from the date of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9376 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Benjamin Mwakavi Kamindwa; Respondent: The Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 May 2025
Case Number
Criminal Revision E217 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
TM Matheka
Legal Topics
Sentencing Revision, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences Sentencing, Appeal Dismissal
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sentencing Revision Remand Custody Credit Sexual Offences Sentencing Appeal Dismissal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Mwakavi Kamindwa

Applicant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in remand custody considered in the computation of his sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the issue of remand custody credit was already addressed on first appeal, rendering the present application untenable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issue of whether the period spent in remand custody should be credited to the applicant's sentence had already been considered and determined by the High Court on first appeal. In that appeal, the sentence was reduced from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment from the date of conviction, thereby taking into account the remand period. As such, the application for further revision under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was without merit and untenable. The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant must serve his sentence as already determined, but retained the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for revision under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is dismissed.
  • The applicant to serve his sentence as previously determined.