[2021] KEHC 8636 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court failed to account for the period the applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was in custody for approximately six months before securing bail. The court held that this period must be deducted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 8636 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Odipo Munira; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 253 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Remand Period Credit, Concurrent Sentences, Criminal Revision, Custodial Sentence, Section 333 2 Cpc
- 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 Odipo Munira
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in custody prior to sentencing considered in the computation of his sentence.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to account for the remand period under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court failed to account for the period the applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was in custody for approximately six months before securing bail. The court held that this period must be deducted from the total sentence imposed. The sentences, which were ordered to run concurrently, remain so. The court thus allowed the application for revision and ordered that the applicant serve the sentences imposed by the trial court less the six months he spent in remand custody.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant shall serve the sentences imposed by the trial court less six months, being the period he remained in custody awaiting the outcome of his trial.
- The sentences shall continue to run concurrently as previously ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 253OF 2019
PATRICK ODIPO MUNIRA.............................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION ...............................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant, PATRICK ODIPO MUNIRA, filed this application on 7. 10. 2019. The same is an application for revision under section 333(2) of the criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya. He seeks that his sentence be reviewed as to account for the period he remained in custody (remand) as he awaited the determination of his case. He had been sentenced to serve 4 years imprisonment on both counts I and II and 2 years imprisonment on count II. The sentences, passed on 19. 9.2018 were ordered to run concurrently.
The prosecution has not objected to this application to have the period spent in custody be considered if the trial court failed to do so.
Section 333(2) of the criminal Procedure Code states;
“Subject to provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code, every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day on which it was pronounced, except when otherwise provided in this code.
Provided hat where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody”.
I have perused the sentencing provisions of the lower court. Same do not give any directions on the period the applicant spent in custody as he awaited the determination of his case. The trial court ought to have accounted for this period in the sentence.
The records of the lower court indicate that the applicant was first arraigned before the court on 12. 3.2013. thought he was placed on bail, it was not until 7. 8.2013 that he secured his release by posting a cash-bail. He was therefore in custody for a period of approximately 6 months.
Being entitled to this period being accounted for, I allow the applicants application (undated) and filed herein on 7. 10. 2019, and order that the applicant do serve the sentences imposed against him by the trial court less 6 months, a period he remained in custody awaiting the outcome of his trial. The said sentences were otherwise correctly ordered to run concurrently and shall remain so. It is so ordered.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
5. 3.2021
Court:
Ruling read out in open court (on-line) in presence applicant and Ms. Akunja for the state.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
5. 3.2021
‘O’
FROM: HIGH COURT APPELLATE SIDE
TO: GK. NAIROBI WEST @ GK.PRISON ALLO.
INFO: PHQ.
5TH MARCH 2021
HCCR REVISION. NO. 253 OF 2019
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 253 OF 2019 ORIGINATING FROM THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT MILIMANI CRIMINAL CASE NO. 415 OF 2013. APPLICANT ATHI/1100/018/LS PATRICK ODIPO MUNIRA APPLICANT DO SERVE THE SENTENCES IMPOSED AGAINST HIM BY THE TRIAL COURT LESS 6 MONTHS, A PERIOD HE REMAINED IN CUSTODY AWAITING THE OUTCOME OF HIS TRIAL. THE SAID SENTENCES WERE OTHERWISE CORRECTLY ORDERED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY AND SHALL REMAIN SO. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR