[2024] KEHC 1503 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court had already considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence. Therefore, there was no basis for revising the sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application for revision was dismissed for lack of merit.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 1503 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Justus Omondi Sidwaka; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 60 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Sentencing, Remand Custody, Sentence Revision
- 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
Justus Omondi Sidwaka
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the time spent in remand custody was considered in computation of the applicant’s sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court had already considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody when passing sentence. Therefore, there was no basis for revising the sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application for revision was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed for lack of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Sidwaka v Republic (Criminal Revision 60 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1503 (KLR) (14 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1503 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 60 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
February 14, 2024
Between
Justus Omondi Sidwaka
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 295 as read with 296 (2) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment.
2. The applicant has now filed an application seeking a revision of sentence in consideration of section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedural Code. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant.
3. I have considered the application, the affidavit in support and the applicable law. The issue for consideration is whether the time spent in remand custody was considered in computation of the applicant’s sentence. I have perused the entire record and the sentencing proceedings. The time spent in remand custody was considered by the trial court.
4. The application is therefore dismissed for lacking in merit.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024___________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE