[2024] KEHC 5115 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 5115 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court failed to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not indicating whether the period the applicant spent in custody was considered in the sentence. The High Court held that this omission warranted revision of the sentence to ensure the applicant receives...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 5115 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Godfrey Ochieng Nalo; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E065 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Ruling
Outcome
Application allowed. Sentence revised to run from date of first arraignment.
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Sentence Revision, Custodial Sentence, Sexual Offences, Computation of Sentence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentence Revision Custodial Sentence Sexual Offences Computation of Sentence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Ochieng Nalo

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the period spent in custody by the applicant prior to sentencing should be considered in computing the sentence imposed.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by not specifying when the applicant's sentence was to commence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court failed to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not indicating whether the period the applicant spent in custody was considered in the sentence. The High Court held that this omission warranted revision of the sentence to ensure the applicant receives credit for time already served in custody. Accordingly, the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was ordered to run from the date the applicant was first arraigned in court, 21/11/2019, thereby giving effect to the statutory requirement and ensuring fairness in the computation of the custodial term.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Sentence revised to run from date of first arraignment.

Orders

  • The applicant shall serve 10 years imprisonment as ordered by the trial court, with the sentence to run from 21/11/2019, the date of first arraignment in court.