[2024] KEHC 5195 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 5195 (KLR)

The court found that the trial magistrate failed to indicate when the applicant's sentence was to commence, contrary to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court held that the period the applicant spent in remand custody must be considered in the computation of his sentence. Accordingly, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 5195 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Evans Otieno Omondi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 105 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Revision of Sentence
Outcome
application allowed; sentence revised
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Sentencing Revision, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Revision Remand Custody Credit Sexual Offences 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans Otieno Omondi

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Revision of Sentence

  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 not specifying when the sentence was to commence as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial magistrate failed to indicate when the applicant's sentence was to commence, contrary to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court held that the period the applicant spent in remand custody must be considered in the computation of his sentence. Accordingly, the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court was revised to run from the date the applicant was first arraigned in court, 14/1/2020, thereby giving effect to the statutory requirement and ensuring the applicant receives credit for time already served.

Court Disposition

application allowed; sentence revised

Orders

  • The applicant shall serve 10 years imprisonment as ordered by the trial court.
  • The sentence shall run from 14/1/2020, the date the applicant was first arraigned in court.