[2024] KEHC 3897 (KLR)
The court found that the High Court, during the applicant's appeal in Siaya HCCR Appeal No. 183 of 2016, had already substituted the life sentence with a 20-year imprisonment term and expressly ordered that the sentence be calculated from the date of arraignment. This direction effectively accounted for the period...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 3897 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Byron Omondi Otieno; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 85 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Computation, Pretrial Custody Credit, Appeal Review, Life Imprisonment, Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code
- 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
Byron Omondi Otieno
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period of 6 months spent in custody by the applicant prior to sentencing should be computed in his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the High Court had already considered and accounted for the pre-sentence custody period during the applicant's appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the High Court, during the applicant's appeal in Siaya HCCR Appeal No. 183 of 2016, had already substituted the life sentence with a 20-year imprisonment term and expressly ordered that the sentence be calculated from the date of arraignment. This direction effectively accounted for the period the applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing, in compliance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As such, there was no basis for further revision or computation of the sentence, and the application was found to be without merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 24/1/2023 is dismissed for lack of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Otieno v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 85 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 3897 (KLR) (18 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 3897 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 85 of 2023
DO Ogembo, J
April 18, 2024
Between
Byron Omondi Otieno
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an Application for Sentence Review from Sentence in Ukwala SRMs Court Criminal Case No. 350 of 2016 by Hon. G. Adhiambo, Senior Resident Magistrate, dated 13/12/2016)
Ruling
1. The applicant, Byron Omondi Otieno, has moved this court by way of a Chamber Summons Application datd 24/1/2023. The application is brought under Article 22 (1), 23 (1), 25 (c), 27 (10), 4, 50 (2)(p) (q), 159 (2) and 165 (3) of the Constitution also Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application simply prays that he period of 6 months that the Applicant spent in custody be computed in his sentence. In the Affidavit in support of the Application, the Applicant has deponed that he was charged, convicted and sentenced to serve life imprisonment in Ukwala SRM’s Court in Criminal Case No. 350 of 2016. That he thereafter appealed against the conviction and sentence to the High Court in Siaya HCCR Appeal No. 183 of 2016.
2. That in appeal, his sentence was substituted and reduced to 20 years imprisonment. He now seeks that the period he spend in custody be accounted for in the sentence pursuant to Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The application of the Applicant is opposed by the prosecution side. Learned Counsel Ms. Mumu, appearing for the prosecution, submitted that the High Court already decided on the issue of the period spent in custody under Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. I have considered the application of the Applicant and also the response from the prosecution side. I have also carefully considered the record of proceedings regarding the case of the Applicant. The record show that the court noted as follows:“However, considering the circumstances of the offence and the mitigation put forward by the Appellant at the trial, I find that the life sentence imposed on the Appellant was too harsh. I hereby set it aside and substitute it with sentence of 20 years imprisonment to be calculated from the date of arraignment in court.
5. With the above finding, it is clear that the High Court already revised the sentence of the Applicant and accounted for the period by Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is therefore nothing to revise on the sentence of the Applicant.
6. I accordingly find this application of the Applicant dated 24/1/2023 totally lacking in any merit. I dismiss the same.Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024. D.O. OGEMBOJUDGE18/4/2024CourtRead out in court in presence of Applicant (Naivasha) and Mr. Baraza for State.D.O. OGEMBOJUDGE18/4/2024