[2025] KEHC 7766 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7766 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial court had expressly stated in its sentencing order that the sentence would start running from 20th May 2024, thereby taking into account the period the applicant had spent in remand custody. As such, the applicant's claim that the remand period was not considered was unfounded. The application for revision was therefore without merit and was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7766 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nicholas Ndambuki Kilonzo; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
3 June 2025
Case Number
Criminal Revision E020 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
EN Maina
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Remand Period Credit, Sexual Offences, Criminal Revision, Indecent Act, Section 333 2 Cpc
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Remand Period Credit Sexual Offences Criminal Revision Indecent Act Section 333 2 Cpc

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Ndambuki Kilonzo

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court failed to take into account the period the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial court had expressly stated in its sentencing order that the sentence would start running from 20th May 2024, thereby taking into account the period the applicant had spent in remand custody. As such, the applicant's claim that the remand period was not considered was unfounded. The application for revision was therefore without merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for revision is dismissed.