https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8220

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8220

The applicant was already serving lawful sentences arising from earlier convictions, and the custody period relevant to section 333(2) had already been taken into account in E246 of 2023. Because the later conviction was entered while those sentences were still running, section 333(2) did not apply to the subsequent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 8220 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: PAUL KAMAU MAIGWA; Respondent: REPUBLIC
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision E094 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) CPC
Outcome
Application dismissed
Judges
["DKN Magare"]
Legal Topics
Credit for Time Spent in Custody, Concurrent Versus Consecutive Sentences, Revision Application, Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, Multiple Convictions and Cumulative Sentences
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Procedure Credit for Time Spent in Custody Concurrent Versus Consecutive Sentences Revision Application Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code Multiple Convictions and Cumulative Sentences

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PAUL KAMAU MAIGWA

Applicant

REPUBLIC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) CPC

  1. 1 Whether section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code applied to the applicant's sentences
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to credit for time spent in custody before sentence
  3. 3 Whether the subsequent sentence should run concurrently or consecutively with existing lawful sentences

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was already serving lawful sentences arising from earlier convictions, and the custody period relevant to section 333(2) had already been taken into account in E246 of 2023. Because the later conviction was entered while those sentences were still running, section 333(2) did not apply to the subsequent sentence, which properly fell to be treated in accordance with section 37 of the Penal Code. The application therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No error was found in not applying section 333(2) because the applicant was already serving a lawful sentence.
  • The application is dismissed.