[2025] KEHC 6915 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6915 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's claim of spending 4 years in remand custody was false, as the trial record showed he was in remand for only 4 months before being released on bond. Accordingly, under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is entitled only to a 4-month reduction in his sentence, not the period claimed in his affidavit. The court emphasized that sentence computation must be based on the official record and not on unsubstantiated claims. The application for a greater reduction was therefore rejected, and the committal warrant to prison was ordered to be computed to discount only the 4 months spent in remand custody.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6915 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Anthony Sande; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 May 2025
Case Number
Criminal Petition E077 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Sentence Reduction Application
Outcome
Application for sentence reduction partially allowed to the extent of 4 months only; remainder of application dismissed.
Judges
RN Nyakundi
Legal Topics
Sentence Reduction, Remand Custody Credit, Defilement Offence, Section 333 2 Cpc, Constitutional Rights, Pre Trial Detention
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentence Reduction Remand Custody Credit Defilement Offence Section 333 2 Cpc Constitutional Rights Pre Trial Detention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Sande

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Petition / Ruling on Sentence Reduction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a reduction of sentence by the period spent in remand custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner spent 4 years or 4 months in remand custody as claimed in the affidavit.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner.s constitutional rights under articles 22(1) and 27(1)(2)(4) of the Constitution were violated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim of spending 4 years in remand custody was false, as the trial record showed he was in remand for only 4 months before being released on bond. Accordingly, under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is entitled only to a 4-month reduction in his sentence, not the period claimed in his affidavit. The court emphasized that sentence computation must be based on the official record and not on unsubstantiated claims. The application for a greater reduction was therefore rejected, and the committal warrant to prison was ordered to be computed to discount only the 4 months spent in remand custody.

Court Disposition

Application for sentence reduction partially allowed to the extent of 4 months only; remainder of application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant is entitled to a 4-month credit period for time spent in remand custody before release on bond.
  • The committal warrant to prison shall be computed to discount the 4 months period within the statutory framework of the Criminal Procedure Code.