[2024] KEHC 4652 (KLR)
The court found that the trial judge expressly noted and considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody (from December 2015, amounting to 1 year and 5 months) at the time of sentencing. Therefore, the applicant's claim that this period was not accounted for is inaccurate and misleading. Since the period...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4652 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wilson Ogwan’g Muruka; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 143 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Remand Custody Credit, Murder Conviction, Application Under Section 333 2, Sentencing Principles
- 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
Wilson Ogwan’g Muruka
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period the applicant spent in remand custody was considered in the sentence imposed by the trial court.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial judge expressly noted and considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody (from December 2015, amounting to 1 year and 5 months) at the time of sentencing. Therefore, the applicant's claim that this period was not accounted for is inaccurate and misleading. Since the period in remand was already factored into the sentence, there is no legal or factual basis for revising the sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application for sentence review was thus dismissed in its entirety.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for sentence review is dismissed wholly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Muruka v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 143 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 4652 (KLR) (29 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4652 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 143 of 2023
DO Ogembo, J
April 29, 2024
Between
Wilson Ogwan’g Muruka
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an Application for Sentence Review from Sentence in High Court at Siaya, in Criminal Case No. 1 of 2016 delivered by Hon. Justice J. A. Makau - J, , dated 29{{^th}} June 2017)
Ruling
1. The Applicant, Wilson Ogwang Muruka has filed the Application dated 10/8//2023 seeking that his sentence be revised to account for the period he spent in remand custody while he awaited the determination of his case. His application is brought under Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution has not made any substantive response to the application of the Applicant.
2. I have considered this Application of the Applicant. I have also perused the record of proceedings of the trial court. The same confirm that the Applicant was charged on 4/1/2016 with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. He was tried and convicted of the same.
3. On 29/6/2017, he was sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonment. I have further perused the sentence proceedings of 29/6/2017 in which the trial Judge (Hon. Justicer J.A Makau) clearly noted as follows:-“I have also taken into account the accused has been in custody from December 2015, which is a period of 1 year 5 months todate.”
4. The above clearly confirms that in sentencing the Applicant, the trial Judge duly took into account the period the Applicant took in remand custody. The plea of the Applicant that such period was not accounted for in the sentence is therefore misleading and inaccurate.
5. The period spent in remand custody having been considered in the sentence, this application of the Applicant clearly lacks any basis or merit. I dismiss same wholly. It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered this 29th Day of April, 2024. D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE29/4/2024CourtPARA 6. Ruling read out in Open Court in presence of the Applicant (Kisumu Maximum) and Ms. Mumu for State.D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE29/4/2024SIAYA HC MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2023 RULING 2 | Page