[2024] KEHC 15755 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court had complied with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by directing that the applicant's sentence run from the date of his arrest, thereby factoring in the period spent in remand custody. As such, there was no basis for revising the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 15755 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Otieno Owino; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E193 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Application of Section 333 2, Computation of Sentence
- 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
Stephen Otieno Owino
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court considered the time the applicant spent in remand custody when computing the sentence.
- 2 Whether the sentence should be revised to account for time spent in custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court had complied with the mandatory requirement under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by directing that the applicant's sentence run from the date of his arrest, thereby factoring in the period spent in remand custody. As such, there was no basis for revising the sentence, and the application lacked merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The sentence shall run from 28th November 2022.
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Owino v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E193 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 15755 (KLR) (16 December 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 15755 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E193 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
December 16, 2024
Between
Stephen Otieno Owino
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted for two counts of sexual assault contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006. He was sentenced to serve 7 years imprisonment on each count to run concurrently from the date of arrest. He has now filed an application seeking revision of sentence. He filed an affidavit in support of his motion. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time he spent in remand custody during the computation of sentence under the provision of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 of the Laws of Kenya.
2. 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.
3. The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to consider 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.
4. It is therefore clear that it is mandatory that the period which an accused has been held in custody prior to being sentenced be considered in meting out the sentence where it is not hindered by other provisions of the law.
5. From the record, the applicant was arrested on 28th November 2022. He was arraigned in court for take plea and was in custody for the entirety of his trial until his conviction on 10th August 2023. He, therefore, spent time in remand custody. From the record, it is clear that the period was factored in during his sentencing. The court directed that the sentence to run from the date of his arrest.
6. For avoidance of doubt the sentence shall run from 28th November 2022. The application is therefore found to be lacking in merit and is dismissed.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 16THDAY OF DECEMBER 2024______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE