[2025] KEHC 4510 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court, in sentencing the applicant to 15 years imprisonment for murder, failed to consider the period the applicant had spent in custody awaiting trial, as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant had been in custody from 17th July 2019, when he first...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 4510 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Josephat Monari Omosa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyamira
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E052 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Post Conviction Application for Sentence Computation
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- WA Okwany
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Computation, Pretrial Custody Credit, Application of Section 333 2 Cpc
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Josephat Monari Omosa
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Post Conviction Application for Sentence Computation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent in pretrial custody by the applicant should be considered in computing his sentence as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court complied with Section 333(2) CPC during sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court, in sentencing the applicant to 15 years imprisonment for murder, failed to consider the period the applicant had spent in custody awaiting trial, as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant had been in custody from 17th July 2019, when he first appeared in court, until his sentencing on 16th November 2020. The court held that the omission to factor in this period was contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section 333(2) CPC. Consequently, the court allowed the application and directed that the applicant's sentence be computed from the date he first appeared in court, thereby ensuring compliance with the law and...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant's sentence period shall be computed from 17th July 2019, the date he first appeared in court, to account for the period spent in custody awaiting trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Omosa v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E052 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 4510 (KLR) (20 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4510 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyamira
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E052 of 2024
WA Okwany, J
March 20, 2025
Between
Josephat Monari Omosa
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. In a judgment delivered by this court, differently constituted, on 15th October 2020, the Applicant was convicted for the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code and sentenced to serve 15 years imprisonment.
2. He subsequently filed the Application dated 31st May 2024, which is the subject of this ruling. He seeks orders that the period that he spent in custody, while awaiting his trial, be considered when computing his prison term as provided under Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
3. Mr. Chirchir, Learned Counsel for the State, did not oppose the Application. He however urged the court to peruse the trial court’s proceedings with a view to determining if Section 333 (2) of the CPC was complied with during sentencing. The said Section stipulates as follows: -(2)Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.
4. I have perused the trial court’s proceedings and ruling on sentence. I note that the trial court rendered itself, in part, as follows: -“In the circumstances, a non-custodial sentence is not suitable and the accused is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for 15 years. Right of Appeal to the Court of Appeal explained.”
5. The above extract of the trial court’s remarks reveals that the period that the Applicant spent in custody, while awaiting his trial, was not considered during sentencing. I note that the Applicant’s trial commenced on 17th July 2019, when he first appeared in court, and was concluded on 16th November 2020 when he was sentenced.
6. I also note that the Applicant remained in custody throughout the entire period of his trial. I find that the Application dated 31st May 2024 is merited and I therefore allow it. I direct that the Applicant’s sentence period be computed from the date that he first appeared in court, being 17th July 2019, so as to factor in the period that he stayed in custody while awaiting his trial.
7. It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NYAMIRA VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. W. A. OKWANYJUDGE