[2025] KEHC 5319 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court had already complied with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by factoring in the period the applicant spent in remand custody. This was evidenced by the reduction of the applicant's sentence by five years in the judgment delivered on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 5319 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Simon Mango Otieno; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E024 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Remand Custody Credit, Robbery With Violence, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Simon Mango Otieno
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court considered the time the applicant spent in remand custody when computing the sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a further reduction of sentence based on time spent in custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court had already complied with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by factoring in the period the applicant spent in remand custody. This was evidenced by the reduction of the applicant's sentence by five years in the judgment delivered on 13th May 2024. As such, there was no basis for further review of the sentence, and the application lacked merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for sentence review is dismissed for lack of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Otieno v Republic (Criminal Revision E024 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 5319 (KLR) (29 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 5319 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision E024 of 2025
DR Kavedza, J
April 29, 2025
Between
Simon Mango Otieno
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted for two counts of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve fifteen (15) years imprisonment on each count.
2. He filed the present application and an affidavit in support of his motion seeking sentence review. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time he spent in remand custody during the computation of his sentence.
3. I have considered the application, the affidavit in support and the applicable law. I have also considered the trial court record. The issue for consideration is whether the trial court considered the time the applicant spent in remand custody.
4. The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already spent in custody. The duty to take in account the period an accused person had remained in custody in sentencing under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is couched in mandatory terms was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs. Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR and more recently in the High Court case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR.
5. It is therefore clear that it is mandatory that the period which an accused has been held in custody prior to being sentenced be taken into account in meting out the sentence where it is not hindered by other provisions of the law.
6. From the record, the applicant was arrested on 30th June 2017 and was never released on bail/bond until his conviction and sentence. From the record, that the period was factored in by this court in the judgment
7. delivered on 13th May 2024 and reduced the sentence by five years.
8. In the premises, the application is dismissed for lacking in merit.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29THDAY OF APRIL 2025D. KAVEDZAJUDGE