[2025] KEHC 5028 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial 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 prior to sentencing. The record showed no indication that the trial court took the 20 months spent in custody into...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 5028 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Harrison Mangale; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E169 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- M Thande
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Procedure, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Statutory Compliance
- 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
Harrison Mangale
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period of 20 months spent by the Applicant in remand custody prior to conviction should be considered as part of his sentence.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to take into account the period spent in custody when sentencing the Applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial 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 prior to sentencing. The record showed no indication that the trial court took the 20 months spent in custody into account. This omission constituted a breach of an express statutory provision. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and ordered that the Applicant's 10-year sentence should be computed from the date of his arrest, thereby crediting the period spent in remand custody towards his sentence.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The 10-year sentence imposed upon the Applicant shall run from 2.10.17, the date of his arrest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Mangale v Republic (Criminal Revision E169 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 5028 (KLR) (25 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 5028 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Malindi
Criminal Revision E169 of 2024
M Thande, J
April 25, 2025
Between
Harrison Mangale
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. By his undated application, the Applicant seeks that the period of 20 months spent in remand custody from the date of his arrest until 20. 6.19 when he was convicted be considered as part of his sentence. The Applicant was convicted of the offence of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to Section 11 of the Sexual Offences Act in Mariakani Sexual Offences Case No. 35 of 2017 and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He averred that the period of 20 months spent in custody was not taken into account in the sentence.
2. The Respondent did not file any response and urged the Court to make a decision after looking at the lower court file.
3. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as follows:Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.
4. The proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the court while sentencing, to take into account the period an accused person has spent in custody pending trial.
5. The record shows that the Applicant was arrested on 2. 10. 17. He was convicted and sentenced on 20. 6.19.
6. In the case of Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR, the Court of Appeal had this to say about the said proviso:The incident took place way back in 1999. The appellant was promptly arrested and taken to court. There were long adjournments due to transfers and/or changes of trial Judges resulting in long incarcerations of the appellant. By proviso to section 333(2) of Criminal Procedure Code where a person sentenced has been held in custody prior to such sentence, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody. Ombija, J. who sentenced the appellant did not specifically state that he had taken into account the 9 years period that the appellant had been in custody.The appellant told us that as at 22nd September, 2009 he had been in custody for ten years and one month. We think that all these incidents ought to have been taken into account in assessing sentence.
7. Flowing from the above authority, it is clear that a trial court must take into account the period spent in custody pending trial, and state so, when imposing sentence.
8. From the record, there is no mention by the trial court that the period that the Applicant had spent in custody pending trial, was taken into account when sentencing him. This is a serious omission on the part of the trial court, as it amounts to non-compliance with an express statutory provision.
9. I accordingly find that the Application herein is merited and the same is allowed on terms that the 10 year sentence imposed upon the Applicant shall run from 2. 10. 17, the date of his arrest.
DATED AND DELIVERED IN MALINDI THIS 25THDAY OF APRIL 2025_________________M. THANDEJUDGE