[2021] KEHC 13706 (KLR)
The court held that while section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the sentencing court to consider the period an accused has spent in custody, the failure to do so does not make the sentence illegal or improper. Therefore, the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 13706 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Kamau Kung’u; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyandarua
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E346 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Time Spent in Custody, Defilement Offence
- 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
Patrick Kamau Kung’u
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period of 2 ½ years spent in custody by the applicant prior to sentencing should be deducted from the 15-year custodial sentence.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code to revise the sentence on this ground.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the sentencing court to consider the period an accused has spent in custody, the failure to do so does not make the sentence illegal or improper. Therefore, the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not triggered in such circumstances. The applicant's remedy, if aggrieved by the sentence, lies in filing an appeal rather than seeking revision. Consequently, the application was found to be incompetent and was disallowed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for sentence review is disallowed for being incompetent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION E346 OF 2019
PATRICK KAMAU KUNG’U......................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant has vide a notice of motion application dated 23rd August 2021, sought for orders that; the court takes into account a period of 2 ½ years he was in custody, while on trial and review the 15 years imprisonment sentence he is serving.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit of even date, sworn by the applicant. The Respondent was given seven (7) days to file a response to the application. However, at the time of writing the ruling herein, there is no response to the application nor submissions thereto by any party.
3. I have considered the application and I note that, the applicant was charged with the offence of; defilement contrary to section 8(1) (4) of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case was fully heard. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to serve a custodial period of 15 years.
4. I note that, the appellant is not challenging the conviction or the legality of the sentence in totality. Indeed, the only thing he wants is for the period stated, deducted from the 15 years. I realize from the lower court file that; the court has not indicated as to whether the period he was in custody if any was considered.
5. However, in my considered opinion, the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code that governs the subject matter herein states that; “The sentence imposed upon conviction of an accused person shall take account the period spent in custody.” In that case, the court to consider the period is the trial court or the appellate court where it is pronouncing the sentence.
6. The failure to consider that period does not render the sentence illegal, improper or incorrect. Therefore, the provisions of section 362 of Criminal Procedure code, which empowers the court to revise an order or sentence does not apply. The applicant should file an appeal if the applicant holds the view that, the sentence meted out is harsh or unconscionable.
7. I therefore disallow the application for being incompetent.
It is so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AND SIGNED ON THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
GRACE L NZIOKA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Kiragu for the for the Respondent
Applicant present in person
Edwin Ombuna – Court Assistant