Sinan v Republic [2026] KEHC 11109 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11109 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- JN Njagi
- Case number
- Criminal Petition E010 of 2026
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- JN Njagi
- Case number
- Criminal Petition E010 of 2026
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court declined to review the sentence as such review was barred after the sentence had been confirmed on appeal, but held that the trial court failed to account for 9 months and 10 days the petitioner spent in custody before sentencing, which section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires to be deducted; the sentence was therefore ordered to run from the date of arrest.
Court disposition
Application partly allowed; sentence adjusted to account for pre-sentence custody.
Orders
- The period spent in custody, being 9 months and 10 days, shall be discounted from the 15-year sentence.
- The sentence imposed on the petitioner shall commence from the date of arrest, 16/1/2021.
02
Material facts
Parties
ATHMAN OMAR SINAN
PetitionerREPUBLIC
Respondent Counsel: Mr. OluochAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Years: 15
- Pre Sentence Custody Months: 9
- Pre Sentence Custody Days: 10
- Arrest Date Year: 2,021
- Sentence Date Year: 2,021
- Ruling Date Year: 2,026
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Petition Seeking Sentence Review / Ruling on Undated Application for Review/re Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the High Court could review a 15-year sentence previously confirmed on appeal by a court of equal jurisdiction.
- 02
Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the period spent in custody before sentence deducted from the sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- He is fully reformed and rehabilitated, has maintained exemplary conduct in custody, has undergone prison rehabilitation programmes, and the time spent in custody should be considered under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
High Court ruling
A sentence imposed for an offence carrying a minimum punishment cannot be reviewed on the basis urged where it has already been confirmed on appeal by a judge of equal jurisdiction.
- 02
Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code
Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and requires the sentencing court to consider the period an accused spent in custody before sentence.
- 03
High Court ruling
Where the trial court does not show that pre-sentence custody was considered, the sentence commencement date should be backdated to the date of arrest.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court declined to review the sentence as such review was barred after the sentence had been confirmed on appeal, but held that the trial court failed to account for 9 months and 10 days the petitioner spent in custody before sentencing, which section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires to be deducted; the sentence was therefore ordered to run from the date of arrest.
Court disposition
Application partly allowed; sentence adjusted to account for pre-sentence custody.
- The period spent in custody, being 9 months and 10 days, shall be discounted from the 15-year sentence.
- The sentence imposed on the petitioner shall commence from the date of arrest, 16/1/2021.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT GARSEN HIGH COURT CRIMINAL PETITION NO.E010 OF 2026 ATHMAN OMAR SINAN….………………………..……. PETITIONER VERSUS REPUBLIC………………….……………………..……….RESPONDENT RULING 1. The petitioner herein has filled an undated application seeking for review of his 15 years sentence imposed on him on 28/10/2021 for the offence of defilement Contrary to Section 8(1) as read with 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act.
2. The application is based on the grounds that he is fully reformed and rehabilitated. That he has maintained exemplary behavior in person during his incarceration. That he has undergone various rehabilitation programmes in prison.
3. The Applicant further seeks for the time spent in custody to be considered pursuant to the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. I have considered the application. The applicant was convicted of an offence that carries a minimum sentence of 15 years. There is no legal ground to review a sentence which was on appeal confirmed by another judge of equal jurisdiction as that of this court.
5. I have however perused the lower court’s file and noted that the applicant was in custody throughout the trial. He was arrested on 16/1/2021 and arraigned in court on 18/1/2021. He was sentenced on 28/10/2021. He was therefore in custody for 9 months and 10 days before he was sentenced. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a court when sentencing an accused who has been in custody to take into account the period spent in custody. The section is couched in mandatory terms. The trial court did not indicate whether it had taken that period into account when it sentenced the applicant to the minimum sentence of 15 years.
6. In the premises, the period spent in custody should be discounted from the sentence of 15 years. Accordingly, I order that the sentence imposed on the applicant commences from the date of his arrest, i.e on 16/1/202. Ruling Delivered, dated and signed at GARSEN this 21st day of July, 2026. J. N. NJAGI JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Oluoch for Respondent Petitioner – Present virtually at GK Prison Malindi. Court Assistant - Jumaa
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.