[2024] KEHC 14854 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had spent nine months and twenty-eight days in remand custody prior to sentencing, and the trial court failed to account for this period when passing sentence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines mandate that such...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 14854 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Erick Shavasinya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Vihiga
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E029 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; period spent in custody to be considered in sentence computation.
- Judges
- JN Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Remand Period Credit, Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code, Grievous Harm, 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
Erick Shavasinya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent by the applicant in remand custody prior to sentencing should be considered in computing his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to take into account the applicant's pre-sentence custody period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had spent nine months and twenty-eight days in remand custody prior to sentencing, and the trial court failed to account for this period when passing sentence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines mandate that such pre-sentence custody must be considered to ensure proportionality and fairness in sentencing. The court exercised its discretion to grant the application, ordering that the period spent in custody be credited towards the applicant's sentence, thereby rectifying the oversight and ensuring compliance with statutory and policy requirements.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; period spent in custody to be considered in sentence computation.
Orders
- The period the applicant spent in custody between 17th August 2022 and 14th June 2023 shall be taken into account when computing his sentence in accordance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Shavasinya v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E029 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 14854 (KLR) (27 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 14854 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Vihiga
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E029 of 2024
JN Kamau, J
November 27, 2024
Between
Erick Shavasinya
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
Introduction 1. The Applicant herein was charged with the offence of grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment.
2. On 5th February 2024, he filed Notice of Motion application dated 31st January 2024 seeking a review of his sentence. He urged the court to consider the period of eleven (11) months that he spent in remand during trial from 17th August 2022 to 12th June 2023 when he was arrested and sentenced respectively as part of his sentence.
3. In that regard, he placed reliance on the case of Ahammed Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs Republic Criminal Appeal No 78 of 2009 (eKLR citation not given) where the courts while applying Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code held that the sentence of imprisonment ought to run from the date of arrest.
4. He did not file any Written Submissions. The Respondent was not opposed to the said application and did not therefore file any written submissions. The Ruling herein is therefore based on his affidavit evidence.
Legal Analysis 5. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that:“Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody (emphasis court)”.
6. This duty is also contained in the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines where it is provided that: -“The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already served in custody if the convicted person had been in custody during the trial. Failure to do so impacts on the overall period of detention which may result in an excessive punishment that is not proportional to the offence committed. In determining the period of imprisonment that should be served by an offender, the court must take into account the period in which the offender was held in custody during the trial.”
7. The duty to take into account the period an accused person had remained in custody before sentencing pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was restated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs Republic (Supra).
8. The Charge Sheet herein showed that the Applicant herein was arrested on 17th August 2022. He was sentenced on 15th June 2023. He thus spent nine (9) months and twenty eight (28) days in custody before he was sentenced.
9. A reading of the Trial Court’s Sentence showed that it did not take into account the time that he spent in remand before sentencing him. This court was therefore persuaded that this was a suitable case for it to exercise its discretion and grant the orders sought.
Disposition 10. For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 31st January 2024 and filed on 5th February 2024 was merited with regard to his prayer pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 (Laws of Kenya) only.
11. For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby ordered and directed that the period the Applicant spent in custody between 17th August 2022 and 14th June 2023 be taken into account when computing his sentence in accordance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 (Laws of Kenya).
12. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT VIHIGA THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024J. KAMAUJUDGE