[2025] KEHC 4170 (KLR)
The 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 before sentencing. The applicant was in custody from 6th October 2022 until his conviction and sentencing on 21st...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 4170 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jeremiah Manoah; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E040 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Sentence Review
- 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
Jeremiah Manoah
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody when computing the sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the sentence commence from the date of arrest pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The 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 before sentencing. The applicant was in custody from 6th October 2022 until his conviction and sentencing on 21st December 2023, and this period was not factored into the computation of his sentence. The High Court held that failure to account for this period would amount to a denial of a statutory right and ordered that the sentence of twenty years' imprisonment should run from the date of arrest, thereby giving effect to the statutory and judicially recognized principle that time spent in...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment imposed by the trial court shall run from 6th October 2022, the date of the applicant’s arrest, pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Manoah v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E040 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 4170 (KLR) (1 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4170 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E040 of 2025
DR Kavedza, J
April 1, 2025
Between
Jeremiah Manoah
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant 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. He was sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment.
2. He filed the present application and an affidavit in support of his motion seeking sentence review. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time he spent in remand custody during the computation of his sentence.
3. I have considered the application, the affidavit in support and the applicable law. I have also considered the trial court record. The issue for consideration is whether the trial court considered the time the applicant spent in remand custody.
4. The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already spent in custody. The duty to take in account the period an accused person had remained in custody in sentencing under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is couched in mandatory terms was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs. Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR and more recently in the High Court case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR.
5. It is therefore clear that it is mandatory that the period which an accused has been held in custody prior to being sentenced be taken into account in meting out the sentence where it is not hindered by other provisions of the law.
6. From the record, the applicant was arrested on 6th October 2022 and was never released on bail/bond until his conviction and sentence on 21st December 2023. From the record, that the period was not factored in during his sentencing.
7. Guided by the law, the court is of the view that the application ought to be considered, as failure to do so would amount to denying the applicant a right due to the failure of the court to discharge an obligation bestowed upon it by law.
8. I thus allow the application and order that the sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment imposed by the trial court shall run from 6th October 2022 the date of the applicant’s arrest pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.Orders accordingly.
Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 1st April 2025. ................D. KAVEDZAJUDGE