[2023] KEHC 25090 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 25090 (KLR)

The court found that the sentencing judge had already complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by reducing the respondent's sentence by eight years, which exceeded the actual period spent in pre-sentence custody (six years and nine months). Therefore, the applicant had already benefited from the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 25090 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Nicasio Muriithi Mai
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E013 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
RM Mwongo
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Pre Sentence Custody, Application of Section 333 2, Murder Conviction
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Pre Sentence Custody Application of Section 333 2 Murder Conviction

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Nicasio Muriithi Mai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

  1. 1 Whether the period the respondent spent in pre-sentence custody was properly taken into account during sentencing as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether there is any basis for further reduction of the respondent's sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentencing judge had already complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by reducing the respondent's sentence by eight years, which exceeded the actual period spent in pre-sentence custody (six years and nine months). Therefore, the applicant had already benefited from the statutory requirement and more, and there was no basis for further reduction of the sentence. The application for review was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • Ruling to be served on Applicant and State.