[2025] KEHC 3246 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the seven months and twelve days the applicant spent in remand custody prior to conviction, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This omission was contrary to mandatory statutory and judicial authority, which obligates courts to deduct...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3246 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Njuga Macharia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E004 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Remand Period in Sentence Computation
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, 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
Samuel Njuga Macharia
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Consideration of Remand Period in Sentence Computation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to consider the time the applicant spent in remand custody during sentencing.
- 2 Whether the sentence should be adjusted to account for the remand period as required by law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the seven months and twelve days the applicant spent in remand custody prior to conviction, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This omission was contrary to mandatory statutory and judicial authority, which obligates courts to deduct time spent in custody from the sentence imposed. The court therefore allowed the application and ordered that the applicant's sentence be computed less the remand period, with the sentence commencing from the date of arrest.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The sentence imposed on the applicant shall be computed less by seven (7) months and twelve (12) days spent in remand custody during his trial.
- The sentence shall commence on 23rd February 2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Macharia v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 3246 (KLR) (17 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3246 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E004 of 2025
DR Kavedza, J
February 17, 2025
Between
Samuel Njuga Macharia
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. The applicant was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.
2. He filed the present notice of motion application and an affidavit in support of the same. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time he spent in remand custody during the computation of sentence.
3. 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.
4. The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account 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 vs. Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR and more recently in the High Court case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR.
5. It is therefore clear that it is mandatory that the period which an accused has been held in custody prior to being sentenced be taken into account in meting out the sentence where it is not hindered by other provisions of the law.
6. From the record, the applicant was arrested on 21st February 2013, and was never released on bail or bond until his conviction on 3rd October 2013. He, therefore, spent seven (7) months and twelve (12) days in remand custody. From the record, that the period was not factored in during his sentencing.
7. Guided by the law, the court is of the view that the application ought to be considered, as failure to do so would amount to denying the applicant a right due to the failure of the court to discharge an obligation bestowed upon it by law.
8. I thus allow the application and order that the sentence imposed shall be computed less by seven (7) months and twelve (12) days spent in remand custody during his trial. The sentence shall commence on 23rd February 2013.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 17TH FEBRUARY 2025______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE