[2025] KEHC 10083 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 10083 (KLR)

The High Court held that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires courts to consider time spent in custody when imposing a custodial sentence, does not apply where the sentence is a fine with a default custodial term. The rationale is that the default term only arises if the fine is not paid, and the applicant retains the option to pay the fine and avoid imprisonment. Therefore, time spent in remand custody cannot be credited against a default custodial sentence, as the primary sentence is not imprisonment. The application for sentence review on this ground was found to lack merit and was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 10083 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Makokha Mulwale; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kibera
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 July 2025
Case Number
Criminal Revision E064 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DR Kavedza
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Default Sentences, Fine Imposition
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentencing Principles Remand Custody Credit Default Sentences Fine Imposition

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Makokha Mulwale

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the time spent in remand custody when sentencing the applicant to a fine with a default custodial term.
  2. 2 Whether section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to sentences of fines with default imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires courts to consider time spent in custody when imposing a custodial sentence, does not apply where the sentence is a fine with a default custodial term. The rationale is that the default term only arises if the fine is not paid, and the applicant retains the option to pay the fine and avoid imprisonment. Therefore, time spent in remand custody cannot be credited against a default custodial sentence, as the primary sentence is not imprisonment. The application for sentence review on this ground was found to lack merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for sentence review is dismissed.