[2023] KEHC 1775 (KLR)
The court held that it is mandatory for sentencing courts to consider the period an accused person has spent in custody during trial, as stipulated under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and reinforced by the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines. The trial court failed to properly account for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 1775 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Zacharia Benard Mutui; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitui
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision Application 028 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- F Wangari
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Computation, Time Spent in Custody, Application of Section 333 2 Cpc
- 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
Zacharia Benard Mutui
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court properly considered the period spent in custody by the applicant when computing the sentence as required under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the sentence commence from the date he was first presented in court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it is mandatory for sentencing courts to consider the period an accused person has spent in custody during trial, as stipulated under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and reinforced by the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines. The trial court failed to properly account for the applicant's time in custody, as it directed the sentence to commence from the date of sentencing rather than the date the applicant was first presented in court. The High Court found merit in the application and ordered that the applicant's sentence should run from January 24, 2022, the date he was first presented in court, thereby ensuring compliance with the statutory and policy...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant's sentence shall run from January 24, 2022, being the date he was first presented in court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Mutui v Republic (Criminal Revision Application 028 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 1775 (KLR) (16 February 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 1775 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kitui
Criminal Revision Application 028 of 2022
F Wangari, J
February 16, 2023
Between
Zacharia Benard Mutui
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
Background 1. The applicant herein was charged with the offence of threatening to kill contrary to section 223 (1) ) of the Penal Code1. He was also charged with the offence of malicious damage to property contrary to section 339 (1) of the Penal Code. The applicant was subsequently convicted in both counts. In count 1, he was sentenced to serve 3 years imprisonment. In count 2, he was sentenced to serve 1 year imprisonment. The imprisonment term was to run concurrently.1Chapter 63 Laws of Kenya
2. The appellant has now moved this court via an application filed on September 15, 2022, seeking to have the computation of the period spent in custody under section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was not opposed.
3. Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code states;‘Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (cap 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced except where otherwise provided in this codeProvided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take into account of the period spent in custody’
4. In his application, the appellant states that he does not seek to interfere with his conviction or sentence but the application of section 333 (2) of CPC. From the provision of the above section, it is mandatory for the court while sentencing, to consider the time spent in custody during trial. This is also amplified by The Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines and Directions, where the courts are obligated to consider time already served in custody if the convicted person was in custody during trial.22The Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines and Directions, Clause 7. 10
5. In Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic3, the Court of Appeal faulted the High Court for misdirecting itself by ordering that the appellants substituted sentence to run from the date of conviction instead of the date of the arrest. In this case, the trial court stated that it considered the time spent in custody and directed that the imprisonment term would start counting from the date of sentence which was June 15, 2022. 3Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic (2018) eKLR
Determination 6. From the above discussion, the trial court ought to have considered the time spent in custody while sentencing the applicant. I find that the application has merits and is therefore allowed as prayed and the sentence to run from January 24, 2022 when the appellant was first presented in court.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023. …………………………F. WANGARIJUDGE