[2023] KEHC 23338 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the period the applicant spent in pre-trial custody, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant had already served a substantial period in custody, both before and after sentencing. The High Court held that the sentence should...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23338 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Mwangi Njoroge; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E160 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Pre Trial Custody Credit, Obtaining by False Pretenses
- 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
Stephen Mwangi Njoroge
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to consider the time spent in pre-trial custody when sentencing the applicant.
- 2 Whether the sentence should be revised in light of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the fine imposed was appropriate under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the period the applicant spent in pre-trial custody, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant had already served a substantial period in custody, both before and after sentencing. The High Court held that the sentence should be revised to account for the time already served, and accordingly ordered the applicant's release unless otherwise lawfully held. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of section 333(2) and the need to avoid double punishment for the same offence.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant is set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Njoroge v Republic (Criminal Revision E160 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 23338 (KLR) (Crim) (11 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23338 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision E160 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
October 11, 2023
Between
Stephen Mwangi Njoroge
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant filed a notice of motion dated February 3, 2023 seeking the revision of his sentence. The application is supported by his affidavit of similar date. The averments made are that he was convicted for the offence of obtaining money by false pretenses contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve one (1) year imprisonment in alternative to the fine imposed of Kshs 300,000.
2. He avers that during the sentencing proceedings, the trial court failed to consider the time spent in pre-trial custody. That he was only released on bond after spending eleven (11) months in remand custody. He urged the court to revise his sentence in consideration of section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also sought revision of the fine imposed.
3. I have considered the application, and perused the trial court’s record. From the record, the applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs 300,000 and in default serve 12 months imprisonment. Since his sentence which was delivered on December 14, 2022, he has already spent 10 months in custody. In addition to the time spent in pre-trial custody, the sentence imposed should be computed in consideration of the time served.
4. In the circumstances, the applicant is hereby set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023. .......................................D. KAVEDZAJUDGE