[2024] KEHC 1939 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court had considered the applicant's mitigation, including the period spent in remand custody, before sentencing. The record showed explicit acknowledgment by the trial court of this period, and the sentence imposed reflected this consideration. Therefore, there was no basis for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 1939 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daniel Njenga Mwaura; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 22 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Narcotic Offences
- 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
Daniel Njenga Mwaura
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court considered the time the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court had considered the applicant's mitigation, including the period spent in remand custody, before sentencing. The record showed explicit acknowledgment by the trial court of this period, and the sentence imposed reflected this consideration. Therefore, there was no basis for revising the sentence as the requirements of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code had been met.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed for lack of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Mwaura v Republic (Criminal Revision 22 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1939 (KLR) (29 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1939 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 22 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
February 29, 2024
Between
Daniel Njenga Mwaura
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to section 4 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act No. 4 of 1994. He was sentenced to serve 8 years imprisonment in addition to the payment of a fine of Kshs.4,248,000 in default to serve an additional 1-year imprisonment. He has now filed an application seeking revision of sentence. She filed an affidavit in support of his motion. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time she spent in reman custody during the computation of sentence.
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. 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 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. I have perused the original record and I find the trial court considered the mitigation before sentencing the applicant. The court noted that it had already considered the said period thus the sentence of 8 years in addition to payment of a fine.
6. The upshot of the above is that the application is dismissed for lacking in merit.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE