[2023] KEHC 24846 (KLR)
The court held that while the period spent in remand custody should generally be considered in sentencing, it is not practical or legally feasible to reduce a life sentence by a specific period, such as 1 year and 3 months. Life imprisonment is an indeterminate sentence, and the law does not provide for its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 24846 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mwangangi Matei; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E017 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Reduction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Life Imprisonment
- 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
Mwangangi Matei
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Reduction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent in remand custody should be considered in reducing a life sentence.
- 2 Whether a life sentence can be reduced by a specific period spent in remand custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while the period spent in remand custody should generally be considered in sentencing, it is not practical or legally feasible to reduce a life sentence by a specific period, such as 1 year and 3 months. Life imprisonment is an indeterminate sentence, and the law does not provide for its reduction by subtracting time spent in remand custody. Therefore, the application for sentence reduction in the manner sought was not capable of implementation and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for reduction of sentence by the period spent in remand custody is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Matei v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E017 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 24846 (KLR) (31 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 24846 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Garissa
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E017 of 2023
JN Onyiego, J
October 31, 2023
(IN THE MATTER OF AN INTENDED APPEAL)
Between
Mwangangi Matei
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant herein was charged with defilement contrary to section 8 (1) as read with section 8 (2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. Particulars were that on the 17th day of October, 2014 between 5. 00a.m and 11. 00a.m in Bura Tana District within Tana River County did commit an act which caused penetration with your genital organ namely penis to the genital organ namely vagina of JC a girl aged 4 years.
2. He was also charged with an alternative count of indecent act Contrary to section 11 (1) of The Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006. Particulars were that on the 17th day of October, 2014 between 5. 00a.m and 11. 00a.m at in Bura Tana District within Tana River County willfully and unlawfully touched the vagina and buttocks of JC a girl aged 4 years.
3. Having returned a plea of not guilty the matter proceeded to full trial. Subsequently, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
4. Consequently, the applicant moved this court vide chamber summons filed on August 29, 2023 seeking the court to consider reduction of his sentence by 1 year and 3 months being the period spent in remand custody.
5. In response, the State conceded to the application.
6. I have considered the application herein and the response thereof. the crème of the matter herein is the inclusion of the period spent in remand custody in computing sentence. The applicant was arrested on 17-10-2014 and arraigned in court on 21. 10. 2014. He remained in custody till he was convicted and sentenced on 23-2-2016. Clearly therefore he was in remand custody for 1 year 3 months and 5 days.
7. However, it is not practical to reduce life sentence with specific period. The application is therefore not capable of implementation in the manner it is coached. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. .........................J. N. ONYIEGOJUDGE