[2020] KEHC 2548 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court failed to expressly consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody before conviction, as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court therefore revised the sentence to two years from the date the applicant was first remanded, noting that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2548 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Onesmus Ingos Isindu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 3 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- sentence revised; applicant to be released forthwith, subject to conditions
- Judges
- J Wakiaga
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Remand Periods, Sentence Revision
- 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
Onesmus Ingos Isindu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody before conviction under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of sentence to account for time already served.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court failed to expressly consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody before conviction, as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court therefore revised the sentence to two years from the date the applicant was first remanded, noting that the applicant had already served this period and should be released forthwith. However, should the applicant commit a similar offence, he would be required to serve the two years first in addition to any new sentence imposed.
Court Disposition
sentence revised; applicant to be released forthwith, subject to conditions
Orders
- The sentence is revised to two years from 18/4/2016.
- The applicant having served the period is to be released forthwith from prison.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 3 OF 2020
ONESMUS INGOS ISINDU..........................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................RESPONDENT
(Being a Revision arising from the original conviction and
sentence in Cr. Case No. 1789 of 2016 in the CMC’s Court
at Kibera, Hon. B. Ojoo – SPM; and Judgment delivered on 9th December, 2019. )
RULING
Upon hearing the submissions by the Applicant and the Respondent, it is clear that the Applicant had been in custody before conviction for a period of almost four years which the trial court ought to have taken into account under the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
I have noted that though he was given a lesser sentence the judgment is silent on whether the years served in remand were taken into account.
I have therefore reversed the sentence meted out to the accused person to two years from the date 18/4/2016.
Since the applicant has already served the said period while in remand the same to be released forthwith from prison on conditions that should he commit a similar offence then he shall serve the said two years first in addition to any sentence meted to him by any other court in the Republic of Kenya and it is ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi This 7th Day of October, 2020 Through Microsoft Teams.
.........................
J. WAKIAGA
JUDGE