[2024] KEHC 391 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 391 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial court failed to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not accounting for the period the applicant spent in remand custody prior to sentencing. The applicant was first arraigned on 27-9-2018 and sentenced on 15-4-2021 to 10 years imprisonment, but the trial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 391 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Michael David Odiwuor; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E058 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision Application
Outcome
Application allowed. Sentence revised to run from date of first arraignment.
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Sentence Revision, Remand Custody Credit, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentence Revision Remand Custody Credit Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2

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

Parties

Michael David Odiwuor

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in remand custody considered in the computation of his sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to account for the period spent in remand custody as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial court failed to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not accounting for the period the applicant spent in remand custody prior to sentencing. The applicant was first arraigned on 27-9-2018 and sentenced on 15-4-2021 to 10 years imprisonment, but the trial court did not specify whether the remand period was considered or from when the sentence was to run. The High Court held that the sentence must run from the date of first arraignment, thereby ensuring the applicant receives credit for time already spent in custody. The sentence was revised accordingly to commence from 27-9-2018.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Sentence revised to run from date of first arraignment.

Orders

  • The applicant shall serve 10 years imprisonment as ordered by the trial court, but the sentence shall run from 27-9-2018, the date of first arraignment.