[2022] KEHC 15570 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court had expressly considered the applicant's mitigation and the period of six years spent in remand custody before sentencing him to 10 years' imprisonment. The sentencing record showed the trial court acknowledged the applicant's time in custody and factored it into the sentence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 15570 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Anthony Mwaura Muoki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 182 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Robbery With Violence, Criminal Revision, Mitigation, Penal Code Section 296 2
- 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
Anthony Mwaura Muoki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to take into account the period the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court had expressly considered the applicant's mitigation and the period of six years spent in remand custody before sentencing him to 10 years' imprisonment. The sentencing record showed the trial court acknowledged the applicant's time in custody and factored it into the sentence imposed. Therefore, the applicant's claim that the trial court failed to account for the remand period was not supported by the record. As a result, the application for revision lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence filed on June 25, 2019 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Muoki v Republic (Criminal Revision 182 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 15570 (KLR) (Crim) (22 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 15570 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision 182 of 2019
DO Ogembo, J
November 22, 2022
Between
Anthony Mwaura Muoki
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Filed herein on June 25, 2019. The application, brought under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 333(2) of the same Act, seeks that the sentence of the applicant be revised to account for the period the applicant spent in remand custody pending the hearing and determination of his case before the trial court. He submitted that he had remained in custody from September 12, 2011 uptil 2018, a period that the trial court did not factor in the sentence.
2. The prosecution opposed this application on grounds that the trial court had, in sentencing the applicant to 10 years’ imprisonment, duly considered the period spend in remand custody. Counsel referred the court to the finding by the Hon. Justice L. Kimaru in the related case No. High Court Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2019, in which a similar application was dismissed.
3. Section 333(2) of the CriminalProcedureCode requires that in passing sentence, the court should consider such period an accused person has spent in custody while he awaits the determination of his case.
4. It is clear from the record of the lower court that the applicant faced and was convicted of the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 295 as read with section 296(2) of the Penal Code. The sentence provided therein at section 296(2) is death sentence.
5. I have perused the sentencing proceedings of the lower court of October 4, 2018. It shows that before passing the sentence, the applicant was accorded the opportunity to mitigate. The court went on to note:“I have considered the above. I have taken into account that accuseds’ are first offenders and are of apparent or relatively young age. They qualify for a lenient sentence. That have also pleaded for mercy. They have been in custody for 6 years. each accused is sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment. Right of appeal 14 days.”
6. From the above, it is clear that in sentencing the applicant, the trial court considered both his mitigation and the fact that he had spent a period of 6 years in remand custody. The application of the applicant that the trial court failed to account for the period spent in remand custody, therefore is not grounded on fact. This application therefore lacks any merit and must fail. The application of the application filed herein on June 25, 2019 is accordingly dismissed. Orders accordinglyD. O. OGEMBOJUDGE22ND NOVEMBER 2022COURT:
7. Ruling read out in court (on-line) in presence of the applicant (Kiambu prison) and Ms. Ntabo for the respondent.
D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE22ND NOVEMBER 2022