[2025] KEHC 3888 (KLR)
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have the period spent in remand custody prior to sentencing deducted from her total sentence, as mandated by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found that the original sentencing court failed to comply with this statutory requirement, resulting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3888 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Judith Mukami Mungai; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E027 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Sentence Computation
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Sentence computation ordered in compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Computation, Pretrial Custody Credit, Manslaughter, Constitutional Rights, Equal Protection, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Judith Mukami Mungai
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Sentence Computation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the period spent in pre-sentence custody deducted from her sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether failure to consider pre-sentence custody violates the petitioner.s constitutional rights under Article 27(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have the period spent in remand custody prior to sentencing deducted from her total sentence, as mandated by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found that the original sentencing court failed to comply with this statutory requirement, resulting in a violation of the petitioner.s rights. The State having conceded, the court ordered that the petitioner.s 15-year sentence should be computed from the date she was first arraigned in court, thereby crediting her with the four years already spent in custody. The court relied on both statutory provisions and persuasive authority to reach this conclusion, emphasizing the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Sentence computation ordered in compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Orders
- The sentence of imprisonment for 15 years shall commence on 10th May 2015, the date the petitioner was arraigned in court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Mungai v Republic (Petition E027 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 3888 (KLR) (27 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3888 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kerugoya
Petition E027 of 2022
EM Muriithi, J
March 27, 2025
Between
Judith Mukami Mungai
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The petitioner seeks sentence computation in compliance with Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and for an order that the period of sentence commence from the date of arrest. On 18th May, 2015 the accused person was charged with an offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars of the offence are that on 30th April, 2015 at Mombao Slum in Kanjuu Sub-location within Kirinyaga County she murdered Francis Gichobi Ndambiri.
3. On 13th March, 2019 in Criminal Case No. 10 of 2015, she entered into a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to the offence of Manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. The accused was convicted for manslaughter and sentence to 15 years’ imprisonment on 25th March, 2019.
4. After conviction and sentence, she lodged a review in the High Court at Kerugoya Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2020. The application was dismissed on 19th November, 2020. The petitioner claims that her sentence had not taken into account the time spent in custody while undergoing trial as required under sections 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further, that her right to equal benefits and equal protection of the law under article 27(1) of the Constitution had been violated.
5. The petitioner was arrested on the 29th April, 2015, took plea 14th May, 2015 and on the 25th March, 2019 sentenced to serve 15 years’ imprisonment. The period spent in custody was 4 years. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, obliged the court to take into account the period that the accused had spent in custody before they were sentenced.
6. I respectfully agree with Odunga J. (as he then was) in Jona & 87 others v Kenya Prison Service & 2 others (Petition 15 of 2020) [2021] KEHC 457 (KLR) (18 January 2021) (Judgment) in holding that offenders “who were sentenced in violation of the said section are entitled to have their sentences reviewed by the High Court in order to determine their appropriate sentences. (c)A declaration that section 333(2) applies to the original sentence as well as the sentence imposed during resentencing.”
7. The petitioner was entitled to have the period that she had spent in remand considered or factored in the sentence. This was not done. The State conceded to the application. The record shows that she was in remand custody for almost four (4) years from 10/5/2015 to the date of sentence on 25/3/2019. The same should taken into account in her sentence of imprisonment for 15 years.
Orders 8. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Court makes an order that sentence of imprisonment for 15 years shall commence on 10th May 2015 when the Petitioner was arraigned in Court to await her trial.
Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAppearances:Ms. Applicant present in person.Mr. Mamba for the DPP/Respondent.