[2025] KEHC 3399 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody, which is a mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was in remand for two years, seven months, and nineteen days before sentencing, and this period was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3399 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Clinton Kasyoki Muli; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E002 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Defilement, Sentence Computation
- 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
Clinton Kasyoki Muli
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody when computing his sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have his sentence reduced by the period spent in remand custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody, which is a mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was in remand for two years, seven months, and nineteen days before sentencing, and this period was not deducted from his sentence. The failure to account for this period amounted to a denial of a statutory right. The court therefore allowed the application and ordered that the applicant's sentence be reduced by the period spent in remand custody, ensuring compliance with the law and upholding the applicant's rights.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant's sentence shall be computed less by two years, seven months, and nineteen days pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Muli v Republic (Criminal Revision E002 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 3399 (KLR) (18 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3399 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision E002 of 2025
DR Kavedza, J
March 18, 2025
Between
Clinton Kasyoki Muli
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 life imprisonment. The sentence was later reduced to 25 years imprisonment on appeal.
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 3rd June 2015 and was never released on bail/bond until his conviction and sentence on 20th February 2018. He, therefore, spent two (2) years, seven (7) months and nineteen (19) days in remand custody. 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 imposed shall be computed less by (2) years, seven (7) months and nineteen (19) days pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 18THDAY OF MARCH 2025D. KAVEDZAJUDGE