[2025] KEHC 10347 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 10347 (KLR)

The court held that since the original sentence was death, there was no requirement for the trial court to compute the period spent in remand custody. The subsequent reduction of sentence by the High Court to a term of years did not include consideration of remand custody, but any correction of this omission falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, not the High Court. Therefore, the application to have the remand period considered was dismissed as the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revise its own sentence in this manner.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 10347 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Makau Mulonza; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Garissa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
17 July 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E070 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application to Consider Remand Period in Sentencing
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JN Onyiego
Legal Topics
Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Criminal Appeals
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Robbery With Violence Sentencing Principles Remand Custody Credit Criminal Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Makau Mulonza

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application to Consider Remand Period in Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should take into account the period spent in remand custody when revising a sentence from death to a term of imprisonment.
  2. 2 Whether the omission to consider remand custody by the High Court can be corrected by the same court or only by the Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the original sentence was death, there was no requirement for the trial court to compute the period spent in remand custody. The subsequent reduction of sentence by the High Court to a term of years did not include consideration of remand custody, but any correction of this omission falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, not the High Court. Therefore, the application to have the remand period considered was dismissed as the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revise its own sentence in this manner.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to take into account the period spent in remand custody before sentence is dismissed.