Gulu v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E018 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12298 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant had been in remand custody for about seven months before sentence, and neither the trial court nor the High Court record showed that this period was considered. Because Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory, the failure to deduct the custody period was an error. The sentence was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 12298 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: MARO SALIM GULU; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E018 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application for Sentence Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- Application allowed; sentence reviewed.
- Judges
- ["JN Njagi"]
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentence Review, Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, Pre Sentence Custody Deduction, Sexual Offences Act, Application of Article 50(2)(p)
- 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
MARO SALIM GULU
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application for Sentence Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's period in custody before conviction and sentence should be taken into account when computing the sentence.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant had been in remand custody for about seven months before sentence, and neither the trial court nor the High Court record showed that this period was considered. Because Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory, the failure to deduct the custody period was an error. The sentence was therefore revised to run from the date of arrest, 14 January 2016.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; sentence reviewed.
Orders
- The sentence imposed on the applicant shall commence from 14th January 2016, the date of arrest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **AT GARSEN** **MISC CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.E018 OF 2026** **MARO SALIM GULU……………..….…………….………. APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **REPUBLIC………..……………………………...….…….RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The applicant has filed an application dated 21st April 2026 seeking for review of his sentence of 20 years imprisonment for the offence of defilement Contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2006, on the ground that the trial court did not consider the time spent in custody when it sentenced him. 2. The applicant contends that he was arrested on 14/1/2016 and was sentenced on 3/8/2016. That the period he spent in custody was not computed in his 20 years sentence. That Article 50(2) (p) of the constitution provides that an accused person should have the benefit of the least severe of the prescabed punishment of an offence. 3. That the High Court in **Jonah 87 others-v-Kenya prisons service of 20 other (petition 15 of 2020) (2021) KEHC 457 (KLR** declared that the period spent in custody should be computed in the eventual sentence awarded to an accused person. 4. He further contends that this court is seized of competent jurisdiction under Article 165(3) (b) the constitution of Kenya 2010 to hear and determine the application. 5. I have considered the application and perused the records of the trial court and High Court filed by the applicant. The record indeed shows that the applicant was arrested on 14/1/2016 and sentenced on 3/8/2016. This means that he was in remand custody for close to 7 months before he was imprisoned. There is no record that he was on bond during the hearing. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a court when sentencing an accused person who has been in custody to take into account the time spent in custody awaiting trial. The judgment of the trial court does not indicate that the trial court considered the time spent in custody when it sentenced him. The High Court in its judgment also did not consider the issue. It is to be noted that the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory. The trial court was in error in failing to comply with the provisions of the section. I find the application to be merited and the time spent in custody should be discounted. 6. In view of the foregoing, I order that the sentence imposed on the applicant do commence from the date of his arrest, i.e, on 14th January 2016. **Delivered, dated and signed at GARSEN this 28nd day of July, 2026.** **J.N.NJAGI** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Mr.Oluoch for Respondent** **Applicant – Present Manyani prison** Court Assistant – Ms.Rahma