[2022] KEHC 12237 (KLR)
The High Court found that in Criminal Case No 803 of 2018, the trial magistrate had expressly considered the period the applicant spent in custody when passing sentence, thus complying with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017, there was no evidence that the trial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 12237 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Robert Karanja Maina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 114 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- Application for revision allowed in part; sentence in Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017 to run from December 18, 2017; application in respect of Criminal Case No 803 of 2018 dismissed.
- Judges
- J Wakiaga
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Pre Trial Custody Credit, Section 333 2 Cpc, Sentence Computation
- 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
Respondent
Robert Karanja Maina
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court in Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017 failed to take into account the period the accused spent in pre-trial custody when passing sentence, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of sentence to reflect the period spent in custody prior to sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that in Criminal Case No 803 of 2018, the trial magistrate had expressly considered the period the applicant spent in custody when passing sentence, thus complying with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017, there was no evidence that the trial court took into account the period the applicant was in pre-trial and trial custody. The court held that the applicant was entitled to have the sentence revised to reflect the period spent in custody, and ordered that the five-year sentence in Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017 should run from December 18, 2017, the date the applicant first appeared in court. Each sentence was to...
Court Disposition
Application for revision allowed in part; sentence in Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017 to run from December 18, 2017; application in respect of Criminal Case No 803 of 2018 dismissed.
Orders
- The sentence of five years in Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017 shall run from December 18, 2017, the date the applicant first appeared before court.
- The application for revision in respect of Criminal Case No 803 of 2018 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Republic v Maina (Criminal Case 114 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 12237 (KLR) (31 May 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12237 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Murang'a
Criminal Case 114 of 2022
J Wakiaga, J
May 31, 2022
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Robert Karanja Maina
Accused
(The applicant had two cases before the honourable court one being Kandara Criminal Case No 803 of 2018, where he was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The other case is Kandara Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017 where he was sentenced to serve five (5) years.)
Ruling
1. Upon perusal of the judgements in the lower court, I have noted that the applicant had two cases before the honourable court one being Kandara Criminal Case No 803 of 2018, where he was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
2. The other case is Kandara Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017 where he was sentenced to serve five (5) years.
3. It is clear that in Kandara 803 of 2018, the magistrate in doing sentence had this to say“Accused has been in custody since June 19, 2018 , let him serve 3 years”
4. I would therefore agree with the submission by Ms Otieno for the DPP that the magistrate took into account the period in custody while passing sentence and therefore complied with section 333(2) of Criminal Procedure Code was complied with and therefore dismiss the application for revision on Criminal Case No 803 of 2018.
5. As regards Criminal Case No 1219 of 2017 the appellant person appeared in court on December 18, 2017 when plea was taken and whereas the same was granted bond. There is no evidence that he was released from custody.
6. On November 5, 2019, the trial court passed sentence thereon in the following terms:“I have considered the probation reports the offence is serious. Accused is sentenced to serve 5 years in jail."
7. There is no evidence that the trial court took into account the period when the accused was in pre-trial and trial custody while passing sentence herein as provided for under the provision of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
8. The appellant having not benefited for a lesser sentence by operation of law,is therefore justified in approaching the court by way of revision. I therefore find merit on the application herein undated but filed on March 29, 2022 as regards the sentence on Criminal Case No 1219/2017 which shall be five (5) years from December 18, 2017 when he first appeared before court.
9. For avoidance of doubts each sentence to ran on its intrepidly. The appellant have been convicted on two independent charges and causes.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A HIS 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022J WAKIAGAJUDGEMay 31, 2022In the presence ofAppellantCourt assistant – Carol M