https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9451
The application failed because the sentencing court had already considered the accused's custody status and, since he had been on bond before sentence, there was no pre-sentence custody period to be taken into account under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9451 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mangale Nyawa Mrinzi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E122 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Revision of Sentence Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["NM Orina"]
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Revision of Sentence, Section 333(2) CPC, Pre Sentence Custody Credit
- 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
Mangale Nyawa Mrinzi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Revision of Sentence Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence should be revised under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 2 Whether there was any pre-sentence custody period to be credited against the sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed because the sentencing court had already considered the accused's custody status and, since he had been on bond before sentence, there was no pre-sentence custody period to be taken into account under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**Republic Of Kenya** **In The High Court Of Kenya At Mombasa** **Misc. Criminal Application No. E122 Of 2025** **Mangale Nyawa Mrinzi….…….……………………..…………………..…………Applicant** **Versus** **Republic…………………………………………………………..……………….…Respondent** **Ruling** 1. The Applicant was charged and convicted with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 and 204 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve a custodial sentence of fifteen (15) years to run from 30 January 2025. He has now moved this court through an undated application seeking revision of the sentence on account of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obliges a trial court to take into account the period a person convicted of a crime has spent in custody in passing a sentence. It is noted from the trial record that the High Court in its ruling on sentence considered that the accused had been out on bond and hence the sentence would run from the date of judgment being 30 January 2025. Therefore, there was no pre-sentence custody period to be taken into account in this case 3. The application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. **Ruling Dated and Delivered Virtually this 2nd day of July 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **Nabil M. Orina** **Judge** **In the Presence of:** ***The Applicant*** ***Hamza – Court Assistant***