[2025] KEHC 9384 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9384 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's contention was correct: the sentencing court did not comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires that the period spent in custody prior to sentencing be considered when computing the term of imprisonment. Upon review of the court record, the judge...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9384 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Brian Mutuku Kyalo; Respondent: Office of the Public Prosecution
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Review
Outcome
application allowed; sentence revised to account for pre-sentence custody
Judges
TM Matheka
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Stock Theft, Pre Sentence Custody, Concurrent Sentences
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Stock Theft Pre Sentence Custody Concurrent Sentences

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

Parties

Brian Mutuku Kyalo

Applicant

Office of the Public Prosecution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Review

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing court complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding consideration of pre-sentence custody period.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of sentence to account for time spent in custody.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's contention was correct: the sentencing court did not comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires that the period spent in custody prior to sentencing be considered when computing the term of imprisonment. Upon review of the court record, the judge determined that the applicant had been in custody since 29/8/2023 and that the sentence imposed on 13/5/2024 did not expressly account for this period. The court therefore revised the sentence to run from the date of arrest, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirement and upholding the applicant's right to have pre-sentence custody considered in the computation of his...

Court Disposition

application allowed; sentence revised to account for pre-sentence custody

Orders

  • The sentence is revised: the applicant is to serve two years custodial sentence in count 1 and 2 with effect from 29/8/2023.
  • Order to be served upon the Officer In Charge Makueni GK Prison for compliance.