[2022] KEHC 10172 (KLR)
The court held that the trial magistrate did not err in computing the sentence, as the period spent in remand was minimal (about five months) and sentencing is a discretionary power of the trial court. The sentence was also confirmed on appeal by the High Court at Machakos. There was thus no legal basis for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 10172 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Katua Kiatu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E131 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision of sentence declined
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Period Credit, Revision Jurisdiction
- 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
Joseph Katua Kiatu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of his sentence to account for the period spent in remand during trial.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred in computing the applicant's sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial magistrate did not err in computing the sentence, as the period spent in remand was minimal (about five months) and sentencing is a discretionary power of the trial court. The sentence was also confirmed on appeal by the High Court at Machakos. There was thus no legal basis for revision, and the applicant's remedy, if any, lay in a further appeal to the Court of Appeal, not by way of revision. The application for revision was therefore declined for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application for revision of sentence declined
Orders
- The request for revision of sentence is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Kiatu v Republic (Criminal Revision E131 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 10172 (KLR) (30 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 10172 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Makueni
Criminal Revision E131 of 2021
GMA Dulu, J
June 30, 2022
Between
Joseph Katua Kiatu
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. In this matter, the applicant has come to this court for revision of sentence through a Notice of Motion filed on March 15, 2021, which he drafted as an application for leave to appeal out of time.
2. It is when the matter was mentioned in court, that he disclosed orally that he wanted a review of his sentence by the court, to take into account the period he was in remand during trial in computing his sentence. He also disclosed to the court that he had filed an appeal in Machakos as High Court Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2013, which had already been determined.
3. I have been availed and perused the judgment in Machakos High Court Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2013, and note that the applicant herein, Joseph Katua Kiatu, was convicted of attempted defilement of a child of 3 years 8 months, and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
4. His appeal to the High Court at Machakos against conviction and sentence which appeal was dismissed.
5. I have also seen and perused the judgment and sentence of the trial court. With regard to sentencing, I note that the trial magistrate reasoned as follows –“The offence the accused is charged with attracts a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years taking into account the age of the minor (3 years and 8 months at the time of offence), I am satisfied that the situation prevailing is more aggravate (sic) and a deterrent sentence is required”
6. I note further that the applicant first appeared before the trial court on November 15, 2012, and was sentenced on April 25, 2013– a period of about 5 months only. In my view therefore, it cannot be said that the trial magistrate erred in computing the sentence of the appellant, as sentencing is an exercise of discretionary power by a trial court, based on the facts and circumstances available to the trial court during sentencing.
7. I thus find no legal basis for reviewing the sentence as requested, as same was properly and lawfully determined by the trial court after the delivery of judgment, and the High Court confirmed the sentence on appeal. The applicant’s further avenue could only be an appeal to the Court of Appeal, if he contests either conviction or sentence or both.
8. Consequently, I find no merits in the request of the applicant to review his sentence. I decline the request.
DELIVERED, SIGNED & DATED THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022, IN OPEN COURT AT MAKUENI.GEORGE DULUJUDGE