[2022] KEHC 15123 (KLR)
The court found that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines require courts to deduct the period an accused has spent in custody from the sentence imposed. The applicant spent seven months in custody before meeting bail conditions, and the trial court failed to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 15123 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Onyari Nyakundi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E041 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application to Consider Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- SN Mutuku
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Time Spent in Custody, Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code, False Pretenses, Penal Code 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
Robert Onyari Nyakundi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application to Consider Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent in custody prior to sentencing should be deducted from the applicant's sentence as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by not considering the time spent in custody when passing sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines require courts to deduct the period an accused has spent in custody from the sentence imposed. The applicant spent seven months in custody before meeting bail conditions, and the trial court failed to consider this period when sentencing. The prosecution did not oppose the application, and the record supported the applicant's claim. The High Court therefore allowed the application, ordering that the seven months spent in custody be deducted from the applicant's sentence, in compliance with the statutory and policy requirements. The prison authorities were directed to compute...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The time spent in custody, seven months, is to be deducted from the applicant's sentence in computing the jail term.
- The prison authorities are to compute the remaining sentence accordingly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Nyakundi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E041 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 15123 (KLR) (27 July 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 15123 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kajiado
Criminal Appeal E041 of 2021
SN Mutuku, J
July 27, 2022
Between
Robert Onyari Nyakundi
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Robert Onyari Nyakundi was tried and convicted for the offence of obtaining money by false pretense contrary to section 312 as read with section 313 of the Penal Code in Ngong criminal Case No. 207 of 2016. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs 1,000,000 in default to serve two years imprisonment.
2. He filed an appeal on 17th August 2021 contesting the conviction and sentence. He however informed the court on 30th June 2022 that he was not prosecuting the appeal because he is not contesting the conviction and sentence but he wanted this court to consider the number of years he spent in custody deducted from the sentence. He was sentenced on 3rd August 2021. He has almost served one year in prison. He told the court that he had been in custody for 7 months.
3. The appeal filed herein stands withdrawn. This court will be considering the time spent in custody against the jail term.
Determination 4. I have read Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the issue before me. It provides that:Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.
5. I have also read the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines (under clauses 7. 10 and 7. 11) where it is provides that:“The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already served in custody if the convicted person had been in custody during the trial. Failure to do so impacts on the overall period of detention which may result in an excessive punishment that is not proportional to the offence committed. In determining the period of imprisonment that should be served by an offender, the court must take into account the period in which the offender was held in custody during the trial.”
6. This requirement, to consider, the time spent in custody is also contained in various decisions. In Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v. Republic [2018] eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated that:“It is not enough for the court to merely state that it has taken into account the period already spent in custody and still order the sentence to run from the date of the conviction because that amounts to ignoring altogether the period already spent in custody. It must be remembered that the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was introduced in 2007 to give the court power to include the period already spent in custody in the sentence that it metes out to the accused person.”
7. The Applicant herein informed the court that he spent seven (7) months in custody and prays that the time spent in custody be taken into account in calculating the prison term. I have read the records. The trial magistrate did not address that issue. The Applicant did not ask the trial court to consider time spent in custody. I have noted from the record that the Applicant spent time in custody before he could meet the conditions of bail.
8. I was not able to determine when he raised bail terms but going by the time he states (7 months) is not unreasonable. From the record, the time he spent in custody is about that time. The prosecution did not oppose this application. Consequently, I do hereby allow this application. The time spent in custody, seven (7) months, is hereby considered in computing the jail term. For avoidance of doubt, Robert Onyari Nyakundi shall serve jail term less the seven (7) months spent in custody before raising bail. Given he was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs 1,000,0000 in default to serve two years imprisonment, and given that he commenced serving sentence on 3rd August, 2021, I am sure he has almost completed the term but that is for the prison authorities to work out the maths.
9. Orders shall issue accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2022. S. N. MUTUKUJUDGE