[2023] KEHC 918 (KLR)
The court found that there was an error on the face of the record as the sentencing court failed to comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not crediting the period the petitioner spent in pre-trial remand custody. The court held that, pursuant to article 50(6) of the Constitution and section...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 918 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Cyprian Kipruto
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 96 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Ruling on Petition for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- Petition allowed; sentence reviewed to comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Pre Trial Remand Credit, Sexual Offences, Constitutional Rights, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Cyprian Kipruto
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Petition for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing court failed to comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not factoring in the period spent in pre-trial remand custody.
- 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a review of sentence under article 50(6) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was an error on the face of the record as the sentencing court failed to comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not crediting the period the petitioner spent in pre-trial remand custody. The court held that, pursuant to article 50(6) of the Constitution and section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentence of 15 years' imprisonment should be reviewed to commence from July 1, 2015, the date the petitioner was first remanded. This ensures compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements regarding sentencing and the rights of accused persons.
Court Disposition
Petition allowed; sentence reviewed to comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Orders
- The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment is to commence from July 1, 2015, in accordance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The committal warrant is reviewed accordingly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
Republic v Kipruto (Petition 96 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 918 (KLR) (10 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 918 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Petition 96 of 2022
RN Nyakundi, J
February 10, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Cyprian Kipruto
Accused
Ruling
1. This petition arose with the judgement of the trial court and on appeal in Kapsabet Criminal Case No 1583 of 2015 and High Court Cr Appeal No 33 of 2019. In the instant case the Petitioner herein was charged with offence of rape contrary to section 3(1)(a) (b) as read with sub section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act. Following a full trial, the petitioner was convicted sentenced to 15 years imprisonment being aggrieved with conviction and sentence he preferred and appeal to the High Court which on a review of the evidence held as follows:- that the appeal and sentence lacks merit and likely so no interference was exercised by the session judge Githinji J. The petitioner wanting to have a third bite of the cherry moved this court once again by way of a petition expressed pursuant to articles 2(1) (3(1) 10(2) 19, 22 (1) 25(a) 27(1) (2) (4) 28, 29(a) (f) 50, 159(2) (a) 165(3) (b) (d) of the Constitution and section 216 and 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition the petitioner cited and placed reliance on the following authorities: Muchunu and Other (April 24,11) (2012 )EAK ZPHC Kwa Zulu High Court, SV Scott Crossley 2008(1) SACR 223(SCA), SV Tom S1990(2)SA 8021(A) AT 806 (L)807(B), SV Mofokeng1999(1) SACR502 (W) AT50(6) and SV Jansen 1999(2) SACR at 373(g) –(h) Davis J.
2. From the lengthy submissions, the petitioner’s main grievance is about noncompliance by both courts with the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Essentially, the prescriptive provision obligates the court to take into account the period the convict spent on pre-trial remand before imposing a sentence of a term of imprisonment. As far as the submissions of the petitioner’s are concerned read together with the record there is an error on the face of the record that the decision on sentence never factored the credit period spent in remand custody. In my view, pursuant to article 50 (6) (a) & (b) of the Constitution the committal warrant of 15 years be and is hereby reviewed in consonant with section 333(2) of the code for the 15 years period of imprisonment to commence on the July 1, 2015. Orders of the court Accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT ELDORET THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023. In the presence of the petitionerMr Mugun for the State……………………………………….………R NYAKUNDIJUDGE