[2023] KEHC 19002 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 19002 (KLR)

The application was struck out because the applicant failed to annex any court proceedings or documents demonstrating the period spent in custody, which is a mandatory requirement for consideration under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, the court found that the application was a duplicate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 19002 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Evans Kanya; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E111 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Sentence Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
application struck out and file closed
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Time Spent in Custody, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Time Spent in Custody Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans Kanya

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in custody taken into account in the computation of his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the application is properly before the court in the absence of supporting documents demonstrating the period spent in custody.
  3. 3 Whether the application is a duplicate of another matter already before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was struck out because the applicant failed to annex any court proceedings or documents demonstrating the period spent in custody, which is a mandatory requirement for consideration under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, the court found that the application was a duplicate of another matter (HCCR Misc Application No E031 of 2023) in which directions had already been given. The absence of supporting documentation and the existence of a parallel application rendered the present application incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Court Disposition

application struck out and file closed

Orders

  • The application is struck out for want of supporting documents and being a duplicate of HCCR Misc Application No E031 of 2023.
  • The file is closed.