[2023] KEHC 1553 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 1553 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court had expressly stated in its sentencing order that it considered both the pre-sentence report and the period spent in custody by the applicant. This explicit acknowledgment demonstrated compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As such, there was no basis for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 1553 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Geoffrey Omondi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision E351 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Time Spent in Custody, Sexual Offences, Application of Section 333 2 Cpc
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Time Spent in Custody Sexual Offences Application of Section 333 2 Cpc

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Omondi

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review

  1. 1 Whether the trial court failed to consider the time spent in custody by the applicant as required under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed should be reviewed on account of non-compliance with section 333(2) of the CPC.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court had expressly stated in its sentencing order that it considered both the pre-sentence report and the period spent in custody by the applicant. This explicit acknowledgment demonstrated compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As such, there was no basis for reviewing the sentence, and the application for revision was without merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review of sentence is dismissed.