[2024] KEHC 6373 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court had complied with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by considering the period the applicant spent in remand custody. The record showed that the sentence was ordered to commence from the date of arrest, thereby crediting the applicant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 6373 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Literewua Lepulote; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 9 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Remand Custody Credit, Robbery With Violence, Penal Code Section 296 2, 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
Literewua Lepulote
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody when computing the sentence.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful in light of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court had complied with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by considering the period the applicant spent in remand custody. The record showed that the sentence was ordered to commence from the date of arrest, thereby crediting the applicant for time already served. As such, there was no basis for revising the sentence, and the application lacked merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed for lack of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Lepulote v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 9 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 6373 (KLR) (3 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 6373 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 9 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
June 3, 2024
Between
Literewua Lepulote
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He was convicted to serve eight years imprisonment. He has now filed an application seeking revision of sentence. He filed an affidavit in support of his motion. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time she spent in reman custody during the computation of sentence under the provision of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 of the Laws of Kenya.
2. I have considered the application, the affidavit in support and the applicable law. I have also considered the trial court record. The issue for consideration is whether the trial court considered the time the applicant spent in remand custody.
3. The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to consider the time already spent in custody. The duty to take in account the period an accused person had remained in custody in sentencing under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is couched in mandatory terms was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR and more recently in the High Court case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others v Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR.
4. It is therefore clear that it is mandatory that the period which an accused has been held in custody prior to being sentenced be considered in meting out the sentence where it is not hindered by other provisions of the law.
5. From the record, the applicant was arrested on 22nd March 2022. He was arraigned in court for take plea. He was granted a bond of Kshs. 500,000 with one surety but spent the entirety of his trial in remand custody until his conviction on 29th March 2023. He, therefore, spent 12 months in remand custody. From the record, it is clear that the period was factored in during his sentencing. The court indicated that the sentence should commence from the date of arrest.
6. The upshot of the above is that the application is dismissed for lacking in merit.Orders accordingly.
Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 3rd day June 2024. .....................D. KAVEDZAJUDGE