[2025] KECA 1025 (KLR)

[2025] KECA 1025 (KLR)

The Court found that the trial court erred by failing to deduct the period the appellant spent in remand custody before being released on bond from his sentence, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court relied on binding Supreme Court and Court of Appeal precedents affirming that this...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KECA 1025 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Geoffrey Nduko Nyabando alias Kundo; Respondent: Republic
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 279 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal on sentence allowed to the extent that the period spent in custody is deducted; immediate release ordered.
Judges
MSA Makhandia, HA Omondi, LA Achode
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Manslaughter, Appeal on Sentence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentencing Principles Remand Custody Credit Manslaughter Appeal on 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Nduko Nyabando alias Kundo

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the period the appellant spent in remand custody before sentencing.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to have the period spent in custody deducted from his sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the trial court erred by failing to deduct the period the appellant spent in remand custody before being released on bond from his sentence, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court relied on binding Supreme Court and Court of Appeal precedents affirming that this deduction is a substantive right and a mandatory legal requirement. Since the appellant had already served nearly the entire sentence, factoring in the remand period, the only just remedy was to order his immediate release. The appeal on sentence was thus allowed to the extent that the period spent in custody was to be deducted from the total sentence imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal on sentence allowed to the extent that the period spent in custody is deducted; immediate release ordered.

Orders

  • The sentence imposed is to be computed factoring in the period spent in custody before release on bond.
  • The appellant is to be released from prison forthwith.