https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9417
The trial court record did not show that the applicant's remand period was specifically considered at sentencing, contrary to the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the sentence was therefore revised so that it runs from the date of arrest.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9417 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: MUTUA MWANGANGI; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E098 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Ruling
- Outcome
- Application allowed; sentence revised.
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Revision of Sentence, Remand Custody Credit, Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, Endangered Wildlife Species, Custodial Sentence Computation
- 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
MUTUA MWANGANGI
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody when sentencing.
- 2 Whether the sentence should be backdated to the date of arrest under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court record did not show that the applicant's remand period was specifically considered at sentencing, contrary to the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the sentence was therefore revised so that it runs from the date of arrest.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; sentence revised.
Orders
- The sentence of seven (7) years shall run from 28th April 2022, the date of the applicant’s arrest, pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E098 OF 2026** MUTUA MWANGANGI……………………………………APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………………………..RESPONDENT **RULING.** 1. The applicant was charged and convicted of the offence of Dealing in endangered wildlife species on two Counts. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 500,000 in default to serve two (2) years' imprisonment. On Count II, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 100,000 in default to serve 5 years’ imprisonment. 2. He filed the present application and an affidavit in support of his motion seeking sentence review. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time he spent in remand custody during the computation of his sentence. 3. 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. 4. The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to consider the time already spent in custody. The duty to take in account the period an accused person had remained in custody in sentencing under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is couched in mandatory terms was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in **Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs. Republic [2018] eKLR** and **Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR** and more recently in the High Court case of **Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR**. 5. 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. 6. From the record, the trial court in its sentencing failed to indicate that the time spent in remand custody had been specifically considered. 7. In the premises, the application is allowed. The sentence of seven (7) years’ shall run from 28th April 2022, the date of the applicant’s arrest pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 2nd day of July 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE**