[2022] KEHC 2979 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 2979 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court had already considered the period the applicant spent in custody (three years, nine months) when passing the ten-year sentence for attempted defilement. There was no illegality or irregularity in the sentence as the requirements of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 2979 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Erick Nandi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision E025 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Pretrial Custody Credit, Attempted Defilement, Sexual Offences Act, Criminal Procedure Code
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Pretrial Custody Credit Attempted Defilement Sexual Offences Act Criminal Procedure Code

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erick Nandi

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review

  1. 1 Whether the period spent in pretrial custody was properly considered in sentencing the applicant for attempted defilement.
  2. 2 Whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the sentence warranting review under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court had already considered the period the applicant spent in custody (three years, nine months) when passing the ten-year sentence for attempted defilement. There was no illegality or irregularity in the sentence as the requirements of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code had been met. Consequently, there was no basis for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the application for review lacked merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review of sentence is dismissed.