[2021] KEHC 1669 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 1669 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had been granted bail pending trial and therefore was not in continuous custody during the trial period. As such, Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply to his case. Furthermore, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review or interfere with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 1669 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Ochieng Ngada; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E113 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision Application After Conviction and Sentencing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Sentencing Revision, Pre Sentence Custody, Application of Section 333 2, Bail Pending Trial
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Manslaughter Sentencing Revision Pre Sentence Custody Application of Section 333 2 Bail Pending Trial

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Ochieng Ngada

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision Application After Conviction and Sentencing

  1. 1 Whether the period spent in custody prior to sentencing should be considered in reduction of the applicant's sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or interfere with a sentence lawfully imposed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction when an appeal is pending.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had been granted bail pending trial and therefore was not in continuous custody during the trial period. As such, Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply to his case. Furthermore, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review or interfere with the sentence imposed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction, particularly since an appeal was pending before the Court of Appeal. The application for sentence revision was therefore declined and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for sentence revision is declined and dismissed.
  • File closed.