[2025] KEHC 8436 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8436 (KLR)

The court found that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody before sentencing. The applicant was arrested on 30th August 2020 and remained in custody until his conviction on 21st February 2023, amounting to 2 years and 5 months. This period was not factored into the ten-year sentence imposed. The court held that failure to account for this period would deny the applicant a right conferred by law and thus revised the commencement date of the sentence to the date of arrest, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8436 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Kimani Macharia; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kibera
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 June 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 6 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Revision
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
DR Kavedza
Legal Topics
Sentencing Revision, Remand Custody Credit, Narcotic Offences, Application of Section 333 2, Non Custodial Sentence, Rehabilitation Factors
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Revision Remand Custody Credit Narcotic Offences Application of Section 333 2 Non Custodial Sentence Rehabilitation Factors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Kimani Macharia

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial and appellate courts failed to consider the time spent in remand custody when sentencing the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have his sentence revised to account for the period spent in remand custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody before sentencing. The applicant was arrested on 30th August 2020 and remained in custody until his conviction on 21st February 2023, amounting to 2 years and 5 months. This period was not factored into the ten-year sentence imposed. The court held that failure to account for this period would deny the applicant a right conferred by law and thus revised the commencement date of the sentence to the date of arrest, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment and the fine of Kshs 20,790,000 in default to serve 12 months imprisonment shall run from 30th August 2020, the date of the applicant’s arrest, pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.