[2024] KEHC 465 (KLR)
The court found that although section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires courts to take into account the period spent in custody prior to sentencing, the circumstances of this case—including the leniency of the 20-year sentence for manslaughter, the unprovoked and extreme nature of the offence, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 465 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dominic Leposo Sadera; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition E001 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Time Spent in Custody, Manslaughter, Application of Section 333 2 Cpc
- 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
Dominic Leposo Sadera
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the time spent in custody by the petitioner prior to sentencing should be considered in the computation of his sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment should be adjusted to account for pre-sentence custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires courts to take into account the period spent in custody prior to sentencing, the circumstances of this case—including the leniency of the 20-year sentence for manslaughter, the unprovoked and extreme nature of the offence, and the petitioner's lack of remorse—meant that the benefit of time spent in custody was subsumed within the already lenient sentence. The court held that the sentence should commence from the date it was pronounced (11/03/2016) and declined to further reduce the sentence to account for pre-sentence custody. The petition was therefore dismissed, but the commencement date of the sentence...
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition is dismissed.
- The sentence of 20 years' imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner shall commence from the date on which it was pronounced by the trial court, i.e. 11/03/2016.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
Sadera v Republic (Criminal Petition E001 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 465 (KLR) (24 January 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 465 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Narok
Criminal Petition E001 of 2023
F Gikonyo, J
January 24, 2024
Between
Dominic Leposo Sadera
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
(Revision from Original Conviction and Sentence in Narok CMCR No. 298 of 2010, Narok HCCRA No. 13 of 2016, and Narok HC. Misc. Cr. Appl. No. 71 of 2018)
Judgment
Time Spent in Custody 1. Before the court is an undated application filed on 23/05/2023 in which the petitioner is seeking for the time he spent in custody to be considered in the sentence imposed on him.
2. The application is premised on articles 2, 10, 19(3), 22(1) & (3), 23, 25 (c), 27(1)(2), 28, 29(f), 50(2)(q), 159(1), 160(1), 165(3) (b), 258(1), 259 and sixth schedule (article 262) rule 7(1) of the Constitution, section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and section 38 of the Penal Code.
Petitioner’s Submissions 3. The petitioner orally prayed for section 333(2) of the CPC to be applied and for him to get the benefit of the days he had spent in the remand.
Prosecution’s Submissions. 4. Ms. Kerubo, the prosecution counsel, orally urged this court to go through the record and determine the application.
Analysis and Determination Start Date of Sentence: The Law 5. ‘Every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, … the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.’ Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. But; ‘Provided that where the person…has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.’ (ibid proviso thereto).
7. The purport of the proviso to section 333(2) of the CPC is to avoid ‘…an excessive punishment that is not proportional to the offence committed.’. See explanation in Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines (under clauses 7. 10 and 7. 11. 1.
8. Therefore, section 333(2) of the CPC is a matter of justice and pertains to fair trial. Courts should, therefore, give it real effect in sentencing (Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] eKLR, and Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR).
Relevant facts from the original trial court’s file 9. The court has perused the original trial court’s file and availed itself of its content.
10. The petitioner herein was convicted of the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 of the Penal Code. The maximum penalty provided for manslaughter in section 202 of the Penal Code is life imprisonment.
11. The trial court (Hon T.A. Sitati (RM) in sentencing the petitioner considered the fact that the petitioner was unrepentant, his advanced age- middle-aged greying man and that the attack was totally unprovoked and was extreme, and consequently sentenced the petitioner to 20 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter.
12. The petitioner was arraigned in court on 09/03/2010, the petitioner was released on bond on 20/12/2010, and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 11/03/2016.
13. The court, however, notes that the sentence of 20 years imprisonment in the circumstances of this case was too lenient. It is only fair and just that it commenced from the date of passing sentence; on 11/03/2016, as provided in law.
14. Section 333(2) of the CPC does not tell how the court should take account of time spent in custody. Thus, the circumstances of the case and the lenient sentence, subsume the benefit granted in the proviso to section 333(2) of the CPC.
Conclusion and Orders 15. In light thereof: -i.The petition is dismissedii.But, as a matter of clarity, the sentence of 20 years imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner shall commence from the date on which it was pronounced by the trial court, i.e. 11/03/2016.
16. Orders accordingly.
17. Right of appeal explained.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024. ………………………………………HON. F. GIKONYO M.JUDGEIn the presence of:-1. C/A Otolo2. Petitioner3. M/s Rakama for DDP