[2025] KEHC 10519 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 10519 (KLR)

The court held that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that any period spent in custody prior to sentencing must be taken into account when computing the sentence. The applicant had been in custody from 10/3/2023 to 20/3/2024, and this period should be credited towards his sentences for arson, injuring an animal, and malicious damage to property. However, the court found that the law does not permit the sentence for manslaughter to be combined with the other sentences to run concurrently. Therefore, only the sentences arising from the same trial (arson and related offences) would be adjusted to account for the pre-sentence custody, while the manslaughter sentence would...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 10519 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Brian Oduor Ouru alias Boy; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 July 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E247 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
Outcome
application allowed in part
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Sentencing Computation, Pretrial Custody Credit, Concurrent Sentences, Arson, Malicious Damage, Manslaughter
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Computation Pretrial Custody Credit Concurrent Sentences Arson Malicious Damage Manslaughter

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Oduor Ouru alias Boy

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in pretrial custody taken into account in computing his sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's sentence for manslaughter can be ordered to run concurrently with sentences for arson and related offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that any period spent in custody prior to sentencing must be taken into account when computing the sentence. The applicant had been in custody from 10/3/2023 to 20/3/2024, and this period should be credited towards his sentences for arson, injuring an animal, and malicious damage to property. However, the court found that the law does not permit the sentence for manslaughter to be combined with the other sentences to run concurrently. Therefore, only the sentences arising from the same trial (arson and related offences) would be adjusted to account for the pre-sentence custody, while the manslaughter sentence would...

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • The period between 10/3/2023 and 20/3/2024 spent in custody shall be taken into account in computing the applicant's sentences of 12, 3, and 3 years' imprisonment for arson, injuring an animal, and malicious damage to property.
  • The request to combine the manslaughter sentence with the other sentences to run concurrently is rejected.