[2025] KEHC 5722 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to have the period spent in custody prior to sentencing credited towards his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court had failed to consider this period, and the prosecution did not oppose the application. The High Court, therefore,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 5722 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jeremiah James Obara; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kilgoris
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Case E024 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Pre Sentence Custody Credit, Application of Section 333 2, Sentence Commencement Date
- 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
Jeremiah James Obara
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in custody prior to sentencing credited towards his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by not considering the pre-sentence custody period when passing sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was entitled to have the period spent in custody prior to sentencing credited towards his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court had failed to consider this period, and the prosecution did not oppose the application. The High Court, therefore, allowed the application, ordered that the period from 10/03/2021 to 10/12/2021 be credited to the applicant's 6-year sentence, and directed that the sentence be deemed to have commenced on 10/03/2021. This ensures compliance with statutory requirements and corrects the oversight by the trial court.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The period from 10/03/2021 to 10/12/2021 is credited in the 6-year sentence meted out to the applicant.
- The prisons officer in-charge shall ensure that the applicant's sentence of 6 years is reduced to the extent of the credited period.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
Obara v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Case E024 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 5722 (KLR) (9 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 5722 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kilgoris
Miscellaneous Criminal Case E024 of 2024
CM Kariuki, J
May 9, 2025
Between
Jeremiah James Obara
Accused
and
Republic
Prosecutor
Ruling
1. The Applicant Jeremiah James Obara invokes in his Application the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya in that his period in custody prior to conviction and sentence that is 20/03/2021 to 10/12/2021 be taken to account such that his sentence of 6 years accordingly be reduced to the extent of that period.
2. He relies on the case of Elizabeth Mwiyathi Syego v Republic Misc. App 62 of 2018, where the court held that:“It is the considered opinion of the court having had due regard to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code that the appellant’s application is meritorious. Even though this court had resentenced the applicant, the nature of the application is one seeking a review of the sentence. The review sought only relates to the date when the applicant was arrested which period is needed for the purposes of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I find this court has jurisdiction to accept the request for review and to entertain it. In any event it is not disputed that the applicant remained in custody throughout the trial and she is entitled to approach this court as the sentencing court for relief provided under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In any event the applicant has indicated that she is satisfied with the resentence and does not intend to appeal against it save only that she wants the same to commence from the date of arrest. This court in correcting the issue of the date of arrest does not amount to sitting on appeal. The review sought only targets a small speck in the sentence earlier meted on the applicant during resentencing. It is not disputed by the respondent that the applicant was in custody the entire period of the trial and hence is entitled to benefit under Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
3. The prosecution concedes as much. The court having perused the record and confirmed Applicant’s contention and having noted that the trial court in sentencing did not consider the relevant period in custody prior to sentence, I allow the application and make the orders: -i.The period from 10/03/2021 to 10/12/2021 is hereby credited in the 6 years sentence met out to the Applicant.ii.The prisons Officer In-charge shall ensure that his sentence of 6 years is reduced to the extent of that period.iii.That 6 years period is directed to have commenced on 10/03/2021. iv.Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN KILGORIS HIGH COURT ON 9TH OF MAY 2025. CHARLES KARIUKIJUDGEIn The Presence Of:Court Assistant: Mr.Nyangaresi