[2024] KEHC 9833 (KLR)
The court found that the trial and appellate courts failed to consider the period of seven years and twenty-one days that the applicant spent in remand custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This omission was a violation of a mandatory statutory obligation. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 9833 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Antony Mwaura Muroki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 113 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Revision of Sentence
- 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
Antony Mwaura Muroki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody when computing the sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the sentence revised to account for time spent in custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial and appellate courts failed to consider the period of seven years and twenty-one days that the applicant spent in remand custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This omission was a violation of a mandatory statutory obligation. The High Court held that the sentence must be revised to deduct the remand period from the total sentence, ensuring compliance with the law and upholding the applicant's rights.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The sentence of ten years imprisonment shall be computed less by seven years and twenty-one days spent in remand custody.
- The sentence shall run from the date of conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Muroki v Republic (Criminal Revision 113 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 9833 (KLR) (30 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 9833 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 113 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
July 30, 2024
Between
Antony Mwaura Muroki
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve ten (10) years imprisonment. He has now filed an application seeking revision of sentence. He filed an affidavit in support of his motion. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time she spent in remand custody during the computation of sentence under the provision of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 of the Laws of Kenya.
2. 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.
3. The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to consider the time already spent in custody during sentencing. The court has a duty to take into account the period an accused person had remained in custody during sentencing under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is couched in mandatory terms. This was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR and more recently in the High Court case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others v Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR.
4. It is therefore clear that it is mandatory that the period which an accused has been held in custody prior to being sentenced be considered in meting out the sentence where it is not hindered by other provisions of the law.
5. From the record, the applicant was arrested on 13th September 2011. He was arraigned in court for take plea and was never released on bail during the entirety of his trial. He was convicted on 4th October 2018. He, therefore, spent seven (7) years and twenty-one (21) days in remand custody. From the record, it is clear that the period was not factored in during his sentencing both by the trial and appellate court. 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.
6. I thus allow the application. In the premises, I make the following orders: the sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment shall be computed less by seven (7) years and twenty-one (21) days and shall run from the date of conviction.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2024_________________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE