[2025] KEHC 16878 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 16878 (KLR)

The court found that during sentencing in HCCR No.37 of 2016, it had already considered the period the applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing and factored it into the 8-year imprisonment term imposed. Therefore, there was no basis for further adjustment or inclusion of the pre-sentence custody period as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 16878 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Kimutai Kilel; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E006 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Inclusion of Pre Sentence Custody Period
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Sentencing Procedure, Pre Sentence Custody, Application of Section 333 2, Murder Offence, Penal Code Interpretation
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Procedure Pre Sentence Custody Application of Section 333 2 Murder Offence Penal Code Interpretation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Kimutai Kilel

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Inclusion of Pre Sentence Custody Period

  1. 1 Whether the period spent in custody prior to sentencing should be included in the applicant's sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing court considered the pre-sentence custody period when imposing the 8-year imprisonment term.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that during sentencing in HCCR No.37 of 2016, it had already considered the period the applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing and factored it into the 8-year imprisonment term imposed. Therefore, there was no basis for further adjustment or inclusion of the pre-sentence custody period as sought by the applicant. The application was found to lack merit and was dismissed accordingly.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for inclusion of the period spent in custody prior to sentencing is dismissed.