[2025] KEHC 3107 (KLR)
The High Court found that although the trial court noted the applicant had spent time in remand, it did not specifically state that this period was considered when pronouncing the 10-year sentence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that the period spent in custody prior to sentencing must be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3107 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Victor Chepkwony Kibet; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E055 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Time Spent in Custody, Sexual Offences, Defilement, Application of Section 333 2, Remand Period Deduction
- 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
Victor Chepkwony Kibet
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent by the applicant in custody prior to sentencing should be deducted from the sentence imposed by the trial court under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court considered the time spent in custody when passing sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that although the trial court noted the applicant had spent time in remand, it did not specifically state that this period was considered when pronouncing the 10-year sentence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that the period spent in custody prior to sentencing must be deducted from the sentence imposed. The court, upon reviewing the record, determined that the applicant had spent two years and two months in custody before sentencing. Accordingly, the court ordered that this period be deducted from the original sentence, resulting in a revised sentence of seven years and ten months imprisonment from the date of the original sentence. This...
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The period of two years and two months spent in custody by the applicant prior to sentencing shall be deducted from the 10-year sentence imposed by the trial court.
- The applicant shall serve a revised sentence of seven years and ten months imprisonment from the date of sentence by the trial court, i.e., 11th March 2020.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Kibet v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E055 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 3107 (KLR) (6 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3107 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kericho
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E055 of 2022
JK Sergon, J
March 6, 2025
Between
Victor Chepkwony Kibet
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the offence of Defilement Contrary to Section 8 (1) as read with section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 vide Sexual Offences File No. 1 of 2018 by Hon. E.W. Karani-RM on 11. 3.2020.
2. The Applicant has made an application under section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code CAP 75 for inclusion of the period he was in custody prior to his sentence of 8 years imprisonment.
3. The prosecution opposed the said application, the learned prosecutor contended that the trial court considered the time spent in custody during sentencing and therefore the instant application ought to be dismissed.
4. This court has perused the record and finds that the applicant was arrested and arraigned in court on 2. 1.2018 and given a bond of Kshs.200,000/= and 1 surety of similar amount, the applicant was released on bond, however, the bond terms were cancelled severally on account of interference with witnesses bond and absconding court. At the time the applicant was sentenced on 11. 3.2020, he had been in custody for over a year.
5. This Court has perused the proceedings of the Trial Court of which gave rise to the sentence meted out against the applicant. It is apparent from the record that the trial court noted that the Applicant spent in remand pending trial. While pronouncing the sentence of 10 years imprisonment, the Trial Magistrate did not specifically state that she took into account the period the Applicant spent in remand. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure code, this Court hereby orders that the period of two (2) and two (2) months be deducted from the sentence of 10 years pronounced by the Trial Court.
6. Consequently, the Applicant herein namely: Victor Chepkwony Kibet should instead serve Seven (7) years (10) months imprisonment from the date of sentence by the Trial Court i.e. 11th March, 2020.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KERICHO THIS 6TH DAY OF March, 2025. ………….…………….J.K. SERGONJUDGEIn the presence of:C/Assistant - RutohProsecutor – OgutuApplicant – Present in Person