[2023] KEHC 20438 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 20438 (KLR)

The court found that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that the period an accused spends in custody prior to conviction must be taken into account when computing the sentence. The court rejected the prosecution's argument that it lacked jurisdiction, holding that the issue of computation of time...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 20438 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Vincent Anyanje Malongo; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E023 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Computation of Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
Application allowed. Sentence to commence from March 19, 2013.
Judges
F Gikonyo
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Time Spent in Custody, Defilement, Sexual Offences, Appeal Dismissal
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Time Spent in Custody Defilement Sexual Offences Appeal Dismissal

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Anyanje Malongo

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Computation of Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in remand custody prior to conviction computed as part of his sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider the application after the appeal was dismissed and sentence upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that the period an accused spends in custody prior to conviction must be taken into account when computing the sentence. The court rejected the prosecution's argument that it lacked jurisdiction, holding that the issue of computation of time spent in custody can be raised as a ground for redress under the Constitution even after an appeal is dismissed. Upon reviewing the trial record, the court established that the applicant had been in custody since arraignment and ordered that the sentence should commence from March 19, 2013, thereby giving full effect to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Sentence to commence from March 19, 2013.

Orders

  • The sentence imposed on the applicant shall commence from March 19, 2013.