[2025] KEHC 16831 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 16831 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court did not consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence, despite the applicant's mitigation raising this issue. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory, requiring courts to deduct the period spent in custody from the sentence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 16831 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenneth Kiprotich Korir; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Iten
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal E012 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Sentence Computation Under Section 333(2) Cpc
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
E Ominde
Legal Topics
Sentencing Computation, Remand Period Deduction, Application of Section 333 2 Cpc
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentencing Computation Remand Period Deduction Application of Section 333 2 Cpc

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Kiprotich Korir

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Sentence Computation Under Section 333(2) Cpc

  1. 1 Whether the period spent by the applicant in remand custody should be factored into the sentence imposed by the trial court.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court considered the applicant's time in remand during sentencing as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court did not consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence, despite the applicant's mitigation raising this issue. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory, requiring courts to deduct the period spent in custody from the sentence imposed. The lower court's failure to do so was an error, and the High Court is obligated to correct it by directing that the period of 15 months and 26 days spent in remand be computed as part of the applicant's 5-year sentence.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The period of 15 months and 26 days spent in remand custody by the applicant shall be computed as part of the 5-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court.