[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 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 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Malongo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E023 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 20438 (KLR) (13 July 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 20438 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Narok
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E023 of 2022
F Gikonyo, J
July 13, 2023
Between
Vincent Anyanje Malongo
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Revision from Original Conviction/Sentence) in Narok CMCR No. 297 of 2013 and Narok HCCRA No. 56 OF 2017)
Judgment
Time spent in Custody 1. Before the court is an undated application received in court on June 20, 2022 seeking orders that time spent in remand custody prior to conviction be considered pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, articles 22(1),23(1) 27(10) 50(2)(p) (q), 159(2), and 165(3)) of the Constitution. He prays that the period of 1 year and 7 months he spent in custody be computed into his sentence.
2. The applicant averred in his supporting affidavit that he was charged and convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with 8(3 of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006, and was sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment.
Applicant’s Submission 3. The applicant orally submitted that he is claiming time spent in custody. The High court dismissed his appeal but he did not file any appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Prosecution’s Submission 4. Ms. Torosi orally submitted that the court has already pronounced itself on sentence. His remedy now lies in the Court of Appeal.
Analysis And Determination 5. ‘…Every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, … the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.’ Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
6. ‘…Provided that where the person sentenced… has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.’ Ibid. 7. The purport of the proviso to section 333(2) of the CPC is to avoid ‘…an excessive punishment that is not proportional to the offence committed.’ Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines (under clauses 7. 10.
8. Thus, whereas the section does not state how time spent in custody should be taken into account, courts should give real effect- in most practical terms as possible- of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Codein most (Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic[2018] eKLR, and Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR).
Of jurisdiction 9. The prosecution has argued that the court has already pronounced itself on sentence in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The court is acutely aware that section 333(2) of the CPC may be argued in, as a ground of appeal. Nevertheless, the court is skeptical of the correctness of any proposition that the matter of section 333(2) of the CPC cannot found a cause of action under section 23(1) and 165(3) of the Constitution for redress of violation of the right to less severe sentence or not to be detained arbitrarily.
Application of s. 333(2) of CPC 10. Accordingly, the court has perused the trial court’s records. The Petitioner herein was 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. And, he was sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment. In Narok High Court Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2017, the conviction and sentence was upheld.
11. Both courts noted that the offence was serious and resulted into physical as well as psychological injury to a young girl of the age of 13 years. Nonetheless, whereas the sentence imposed was appropriate sentence, the risk of making the sentence imposed ‘…an excessive punishment….’ will be everted by giving full effect to section 333(2) of the CPC.
12. In that connection, as the petitioner remained in custody since arraignment before the trial court, the sentence herein shall commence from March 19, 2013. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2023________________F. GIKONYO M.JUDGEIn the presence of:1. Applicant present2. Ms. Mwaniki for DPP present3. Kasaso C/A