https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11109
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;...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11109 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: ATHMAN OMAR SINAN; Respondent: REPUBLIC
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition E010 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition Seeking Sentence Review / Ruling on Undated Application for Review/re Sentencing
- Outcome
- Application partly allowed; sentence adjusted to account for pre-sentence custody.
- Judges
- ["JN Njagi"]
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Minimum Mandatory Sentence, Sentence Review, Section 333(2) CPC, Pre Sentence Custody Credit
- 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
ATHMAN OMAR SINAN
Petitioner
REPUBLIC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition Seeking Sentence Review / Ruling on Undated Application for Review/re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court could review a 15-year sentence previously confirmed on appeal by a court of equal jurisdiction.
- 2 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.
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.
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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**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