[2025] KEHC 7971 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7971 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court had already considered and factored in the period the applicant spent in remand custody when computing the sentence. The record showed the applicant was in custody from 13th June 2015 to 13th November 2015, after which he was released on bond, and later absconded until his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7971 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Job Nyangwara Ogega; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kibera
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 June 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E078 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review After Conviction and Appeal Dismissal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DR Kavedza
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Remand Custody Credit, Incest Offence, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Remand Custody Credit Incest Offence 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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Job Nyangwara Ogega

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review After Conviction and Appeal Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court considered the time the applicant spent in remand custody during sentencing.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence should be reviewed to account for time spent in custody.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court had already considered and factored in the period the applicant spent in remand custody when computing the sentence. The record showed the applicant was in custody from 13th June 2015 to 13th November 2015, after which he was released on bond, and later absconded until his re-arrest. The court held that there was no basis for reviewing the sentence as the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code had been satisfied. Consequently, the application for sentence review lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for sentence review is dismissed for lacking in merit.