[2024] KEHC 10689 (KLR)
The court found that the previous order, which generically stated that 'about 14 years or more' served would be considered in sentencing, was inaccurate based on the actual custody records. The court clarified that the accused persons spent a total of 1 year, 8 months, and 52 days in remand/custody prior to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 10689 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Ramadhan Musa Malemba; Defendant: Abdulkadir Mika Natembea; Defendant: Fernandes Juma Malaba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 14 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Amendment of Sentencing Order
- Outcome
- Order amended; previous estimate of period served set aside; sentence of 30 years imprisonment affirmed with accurate remand period to be credited.
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Computation, Remand Period Credit, Death Sentence Commutation
- 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
Ramadhan Musa Malemba
Defendant
Abdulkadir Mika Natembea
Defendant
Fernandes Juma Malaba
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Amendment of Sentencing Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent in remand and custody by the accused persons should be considered in computing their sentence of 30 years imprisonment.
- 2 Whether the previous order regarding consideration of 'about 14 years or more' served should be set aside in light of accurate custody records.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the previous order, which generically stated that 'about 14 years or more' served would be considered in sentencing, was inaccurate based on the actual custody records. The court clarified that the accused persons spent a total of 1 year, 8 months, and 52 days in remand/custody prior to conviction and bond cancellation. The court set aside the earlier order and directed that the prisons authorities should compute and credit the actual period spent in custody against the 30-year imprisonment sentence, in accordance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The sentence of 30 years imprisonment imposed on 21.6.2024 remains, but the period to be credited is as...
Court Disposition
Order amended; previous estimate of period served set aside; sentence of 30 years imprisonment affirmed with accurate remand period to be credited.
Orders
- The order stating 'the period served of about 14 years or more shall be considered' is set aside.
- Prisons authorities to compute and credit the actual period spent in remand/custody as per Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Republic v Malemba & 2 others (Criminal Case 14 of 2020) [2024] KEHC 10689 (KLR) (14 August 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 10689 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Bungoma
Criminal Case 14 of 2020
REA Ougo, J
August 14, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Ramadhan Musa Malemba
1st Accused
Abdulkadir Mika Natembea
2nd Accused
Fernandes Juma Malaba
3rd Accused
Ruling
1. This is a ruling amended the Ruling dated the 21st July 2024. In the said Ruiling I stated that the remand period and period served of about 14 years or more years shall be considered when computing the sentence of 30 years imprisonment.
2. On 19. 7.2024 the Officer in Charge Kisumu Maximum Prisons SSP Patrick Karibu wrote a letter indicating that upon perusing their records they realized that the accused persons took plea on 08. 03. 2010 and not 01. 11. 2011 and that they were released on bond. On 16. 02. 2017 their bonds were canceled by the honorable court and they were convicted on 13. 04. 2017. That the period spent in remand by each accused person in remand custody before being released on bond was 1 ( one ) year, 7 months 24 days and the period between the date of conviction and date of bond cancellation is one month 28 days bringing it to a total of 1 ( one ) year, 8 months and 52 days. They have requested this court to check its records and to furnish them with the exact period each accused person spent in custody for their necessary action.
3. I have perused the court record and this is my finding. The accused persons with another who was acquitted, took plea on 24. 10. 2010 before this court and pleaded not guilty, before Justice Muchemi. Thereafter they were admitted to bond on 26. 10. 2011 but were released on 1. 11. 2011 upon approval of the bond terms. The case was heard and their bonds were canceled pending judgment on 16. 2.2017. The 1st and 4th appellant were taken into custody on 16. 2.2017 and a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3rd appellant who was apprehended on 27. 2.2107. Judgment was delivered on 13. 4. 2017. The accused persons were sentenced to suffer death. They were thereafter committed to jail. They appealed and their appeal was heard and resentence order issued by the Court of Appeal.
4. With the above background prisons are advised to commute the period they have been in remand/custody and to take it into account as provided under Section 333 ( 2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I therefore set aside the order that reads “the period served of about 14 years or more shall be considered”. This court sentenced each accused person to serve 30 years imprisonment on 21. 6.2024.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA ON THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024. R.E.OUGOJUDGEIn the presence of:1st, 3rd & 4th Accused persons -All Present in personMiss Matere - State CounselWilkister -C/A