[2023] KEHC 25501 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 25501 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court failed to indicate whether the period the applicant spent in remand custody was considered in the sentence, as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court held that this omission was an error and that the applicant was entitled to have the period...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 25501 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Omondi Alias Kati; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E094 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Revision Application
Outcome
application allowed; sentence revised to account for remand period
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Sentencing Revision, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Application of Section 333 2
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Revision Remand Custody Credit Sexual Offences Application of 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Omondi Alias Kati

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Revision Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in remand custody deducted from his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to account for the remand period in the applicant's sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court failed to indicate whether the period the applicant spent in remand custody was considered in the sentence, as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court held that this omission was an error and that the applicant was entitled to have the period spent in remand custody deducted from his sentence. Accordingly, the court revised the sentence to run from the date the applicant was first arraigned in court, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirement.

Court Disposition

application allowed; sentence revised to account for remand period

Orders

  • The applicant shall serve 5 years imprisonment as ordered by the trial court, but the sentence shall run from 5/2/2021, the date of first arraignment.