[2023] KEHC 654 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court had expressly considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks. The sentence imposed was therefore proper and legal. There was no basis for revising the sentence further under Section 333(2) of the Criminal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 654 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jacob Kamure Peter; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 219 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Revision, Remand Custody Credit, Robbery With Violence, Application of Section 333 2, Sentencing Principles
- 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
Jacob Kamure Peter
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in remand custody considered in the computation of his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court failed to account for the remand period in sentencing the applicant for robbery with violence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court had expressly considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks. The sentence imposed was therefore proper and legal. There was no basis for revising the sentence further under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the applicant's remand period had already been taken into account. The application for revision lacked merit and was dismissed in its entirety.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed wholly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Peter v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 219 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 654 (KLR) (Crim) (7 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 654 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 219 of 2019
DO Ogembo, J
February 7, 2023
Between
Jacob Kamure Peter
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Dated March 22, 2019 and filed herein on May 7, 2019. The same application seeks revision of the sentence of the applicant so as to give account to the period the applicant served in remand custody, pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant has deponed that he spent a period that was not factored in the sentence imposed.
2. In the short objection, the prosecution left the matter to the court to decide.
3. I have considered this application. I have also considered the record of proceedings of the trial court. The applicant was charged with 2 counts of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He was first arraigned before the court on July 22, 2013. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment on each count. This was on November 7, 2018.
4. I have considered the sentence proceedings of November 7, 2018. The applicant was accorded the opportunity to mitigate which he duly did through his advocate. And in sentencing the applicant, the court noted as follows:-“I have considered the mitigation by the accused as well as the pre-sentence report herein. However, the offences here are of a serious nature calling for a deterrent sentence. I do also take note that the accused has been in remand since 2013….”
5. The court went on to pass the applicant to serve 10 years imprisonment on each count, the same to run concurrently.
6. The sentence provided for under section 296(2) of the Penal Codereads;-“If the offender is armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instruments, or is in company with on or more other person or persons, or if, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of such robbery, he wounds, beats, strikes or uses any other personal violence to any person, he shall be sentenced to death.”
7. It is clear that in sentencing the applicant, the trial court duly considered the period the applicant had spent in remand awaiting determination of his case. The sentence meted out is also proper and legal. This application therefore lacks any merit. I dismiss the same wholly. Orders accordingly.
D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE7th FEBRUARY, 2023COURT:RULING READ OUT IN COURT (ON-LINE) IN PRESENCE OF THE APPLICANT AND MS. ADHIAMBO FOR STATED. O. OGEMBOJUDGE7THFEBRUARY, 2023.