[2023] KEHC 3352 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the period the appellant spent in custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court held that this omission was an error and allowed the appeal on sentence, ordering that the period of 4 months and 16 days...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3352 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Emmanuel Juma Musefu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E065 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal on sentence allowed; appeal on conviction withdrawn/abandoned.
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Procedure, Pre Sentence Custody, Appeal on 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
Emmanuel Juma Musefu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent in pre-sentence custody should be considered in sentencing under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by not factoring in the pre-sentence custody period when pronouncing sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the period the appellant spent in custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court held that this omission was an error and allowed the appeal on sentence, ordering that the period of 4 months and 16 days spent in custody be taken into account in computing the appellant's sentence. The appeal on conviction was marked as withdrawn and/or abandoned, and the appellant is barred from filing another appeal on the same conviction.
Court Disposition
Appeal on sentence allowed; appeal on conviction withdrawn/abandoned.
Orders
- The period of 4 months and 16 days spent in custody by the appellant prior to sentencing shall be considered in computing the sentence.
- The appeal on conviction is marked as withdrawn and/or abandoned; no further appeal on conviction shall be entertained.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
Musefu v Republic (Criminal Appeal E065 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3352 (KLR) (20 April 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3352 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Criminal Appeal E065 of 2022
GL Nzioka, J
April 20, 2023
Between
Emmanuel Juma Musefu
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
1. The filing of Revision is appropriate. However, no prejudice will be occasioned if the court were to treat this matter as an Appeal on sentence per se. Having stated so, the appeal herein on conviction is marked as withdrawn and/or abandoned. Therefore the appellant shall not in future contest of file another appeal in relation to the same. On sentence I realize that he was arrested on July 2, 2022 and arraigned in court on July 4, 2022. He remained in custody until November 23, 2022 when sentence was pronounced. He was in custody for 4 months and 16 days. The provisions of section 333(2) of Criminal Procedure Code requires such a period be considered. The trial court does not indicate that was done. I therefore allow appeal on sentence on that ground and order the period be considered. That then is the order of the court.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2023GRACE L. NZIOKAJUDGE