https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7834
The court held that the applicant failed to show any error, omission, or exceptional circumstance because the remand period had already been expressly considered during sentencing and by the appellate courts; therefore section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code had been complied with and no further sentence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 7834 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Simon Kipisu Makanga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition E038 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Sentence Review Application After Conviction, Appeal, and Second Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentence Review, Remand Custody Credit, Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, Interference With Sentence
- 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
Simon Kipisu Makanga
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Sentence Review Application After Conviction, Appeal, and Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should further review and reduce the applicant's sentence
- 2 Whether section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was complied with in accounting for time spent in remand custody
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to show any error, omission, or exceptional circumstance because the remand period had already been expressly considered during sentencing and by the appellate courts; therefore section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code had been complied with and no further sentence reduction was warranted.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The request for sentence review and further reduction is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Makanga v Republic (Criminal Petition E038 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7834 (KLR) (8 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7834 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Petition E038 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J June 8, 2026 Between Simon Kipisu Makanga Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant was charged with and convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006. He was sentenced to serve twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment. On appeal, this court upheld his conviction and sentence. A second appeal before the court of appeal was partially allowed to the extent that the sentence was reduced to eighteen (18) years. 2.The applicant has now moved this court through the present application seeking a review of the sentence. His principal contention is that the court failed to comply with the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not adequately taking into account the period he spent in remand custody. He therefore urges the court to further review and reduce his sentence. 3.The court has carefully examined the record of the trial court as well as the judgments of both the first appellate court and the Court of Appeal. The record demonstrates that the period spent by the applicant in remand custody was expressly considered during the sentencing process. The issue was also addressed by the appellate courts in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. 4.In the circumstances, the applicant has not demonstrated any error, omission, or exceptional circumstance warranting further interference with the sentence as presently constituted. The court is therefore satisfied that the requirements of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code were duly complied with. 5.Consequently, the application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.It is so ordered. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.D. KAVEDZAJUDGE