[2025] KEHC 9116 (KLR)
The court held that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that the period spent in custody prior to sentencing must be credited to the accused's sentence. The applicant had spent three years in remand custody before conviction, and this period was not considered by the trial court when imposing the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 9116 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Kipkurgat; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E157 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Computation of Pre Trial Custody Period
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Credit, Pre Trial Custody, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2
- 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
John Kipkurgat
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Computation of Pre Trial Custody Period
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent in remand custody by the applicant should be computed and credited to his current sentence as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have his sentence reviewed to account for the pre-trial custody period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that the period spent in custody prior to sentencing must be credited to the accused's sentence. The applicant had spent three years in remand custody before conviction, and this period was not considered by the trial court when imposing the ten-year sentence for rape. The High Court found that failure to account for this period violated both statutory and constitutional requirements. The court ordered that the committal warrant be amended to reflect the three years already served, ensuring the applicant receives credit for time spent in custody and is entitled to an earlier release. This decision aligns with...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The period of three years spent in remand custody by the applicant shall be computed and credited to his current sentence.
- The committal warrant shall be amended accordingly to reflect the three years as part of the remission by prison authorities.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Kipkurgat v Republic (Miscellaneous Application E157 of 2021) [2025] KEHC 9116 (KLR) (27 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 9116 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Miscellaneous Application E157 of 2021
RN Nyakundi, J
June 27, 2025
Between
John Kipkurgat
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Before this court is an application dated 6th day of June 2024 seeking the following orders:i.That the period spent in remand be computed to the current sentenceii.That the said period so spent during the pre-trial period to start from the date of arrest
2. The application is based on grounds that during delivery of judgement, the applicant was nervous and could not comprehend what was going on and that he has since come to realize that the period spent in remand custody was not accounted for pursuant to the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as was held by Justice George Odunga sitting in Machakos (2021) eKLR.
3. The applicant was charged, convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the offence of Rape contrary to section 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act.
Determination 4. The applicant’s grievance is mainly on the pre-trial credit period under section 333(2) of the CPC. It is worth acknowledging on our sentence regime that the accused person is entitled to be given credit for the period spent in spent in custody while awaiting the conclusion of his/her case.
5. In the case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 Others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 Others [2021] eKLR which I fully associate myself with. The Court held as follows;“A declaration that Trial Courts are enjoined by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in imposing sentences, other than sentence of death to take into account of the period spent in custody. A declaration that those who were sentenced in violation of the said section are entitled to have their sentences reviewed by the High Court in order to determine their appropriate sentences. A declaration that Section 333(2) CPC applies to the original sentence as well as sentence imposed during resentencing…”
6. The court remains mindful that detaining individuals before trial fundamentally erodes the constitutional guarantee of innocence presumption enshrined in Article 50(2)(a) of our Constitution. When accused persons cannot meet bail requirements set by trial courts, a right protected under Article 49(1)(h), they face detention that disproportionately infringes upon the fundamental rights and freedoms detailed in Chapter Four of the Constitution. This creates an unjust scenario where individuals have no compensation pathway should they ultimately be acquitted or have charges dismissed.
7. It is therefore important that section 333(2) of the CPC be complied with as part of the structure sentence imposed by the court. As a consequence of the sentenced imposed by the trial court should incorporate the three(3) years already spent in custody before the conclusion of his case. The committal warrant shall be amended accordingly for the three years to be given as part of the remission by the prison authorities to entitle the Applicant an early release.
8. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATE AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025. ………………………………R. NYAKUNDIJUDGERepresentation:M/s Sidi for the State