[2022] KEHC 13601 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had indeed spent 11 months and 3 days in remand custody prior to sentencing, and that this period was not considered in the original sentence as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The omission was inadvertent and amounted to an error that warranted revision....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 13601 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ali Mutano Liban; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E418 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision allowed; sentence revised to account for remand period
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Remand Custody Credit, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2, Sentence Computation
- 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
Ali Mutano Liban
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent by the applicant in remand custody should be considered and deducted from the sentence imposed by the trial court.
- 2 Whether the court erred by failing to account for the remand period in the original sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had indeed spent 11 months and 3 days in remand custody prior to sentencing, and that this period was not considered in the original sentence as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The omission was inadvertent and amounted to an error that warranted revision. The court exercised its revisionary powers to amend the sentence, ordering that the period spent in remand custody be deducted from the custodial sentence. The revised sentence imposed a fine of Ksh. 1 million on each appellant, with a default custodial sentence of three years imprisonment, less the period already spent in remand. The sentence was to run from the original date...
Court Disposition
application for revision allowed; sentence revised to account for remand period
Orders
- The orders of 26 July 2022 are revised to account for the period spent in remand custody.
- The applicant and the other appellant are each sentenced to a fine of Ksh. 1,000,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Liban v Republic (Criminal Revision E418 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 13601 (KLR) (Crim) (11 October 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13601 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision E418 of 2021
DO Ogembo, J
October 11, 2022
Between
Ali Mutano Liban
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The 1st Appellant/Applicant Ali Mutano Liban has again moved this court by an application dated 17. 8.2022. The application is for revision brought pursuant to sections 333(2) and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. in the application, the applicant prays that the period of 1 year that he spent in remand custody be accounted for in the sentence passed by the court.
2. The learned counsel for the state has conceded that the court ought to have considered the period of 11 months and 3 days that the applicant spent in remand custody awaiting the determination of his trial.
3. I have perused the proceedings. The applicant indeed remanded in remand custody for the period claimed.
4. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, at its proviso, provides;“Provided that where the person sentenced under sub-section (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall account of the period spent in custody.”
5. In making the orders of revision herein on 26. 7.2022, this court, by inadvertence did not take into account the above provision in passing the sentence. It ought to have done so.
6. It is for this reason that I find merit in this application for revision. I accordingly therefore revise the said orders of 26. 7.2022 and order that the applicant (and the other appellant. Abdinasir Walde Haile), are sentenced to each a fine of Ksh. 1 million. In default each shall serve 3 years imprisonment, less 11 months and 3 days. This sentence shall run from the date of sentence on 9. 12. 2021. Right of appeal 14 days.
D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE11TH OCTOBER, 2022Court:RULING READ OUT IN PRESENCE OF THE APPLICANT (NAIROBI REMAND), MS. ODUOR FOR THE STATE.D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE11TH OCTOBER, 2022. ‘O’FROM: HIGH COURT APPELLATE SIDETO: @G.K. NAIROBI REMAND & ALLOCATION MAXIMUM PRISONINFO: PHQ.11TH OCTOBER, 2022HCCR REVISION. NO. E418 OF 2021HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E418 OF 2021 ORIGINATING FROM THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT MILIMANI CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1144 OF 2019. APPLICANT NBA/1752/2021/LS ALI MUTANO LIBAN AND (AND THE OTHER APPELLANT NBA/1754/2021/LS ABNASIR WALBE HAILE), ARE SENTENCED TO EACH A FINE OF KSH. 1 MILLION. IN DEFAULT EACH SHALL SERVE 3 YEARS IMPRISONMENT, LESS 11 MONTHS AND 3 DAYS. THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN FROM THE DATE OF SENTENCE ON 9. 12. 2021. DEPUTY REGISTRAR