[2023] KEHC 21736 (KLR)
The court found that the High Court, in its earlier judgment reducing the applicant's sentence to 10 years, had expressly acknowledged the applicant's period in custody and directed the sentence to run from the date of conviction. This demonstrated that the time spent in remand was already factored into the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 21736 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Moses Kibitok Tanui; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E065 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Remand Period Credit, Robbery With Violence, Application of Section 333 2, Sentencing Guidelines
- 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
Moses Kibitok Tanui
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of his sentence to take into account the period spent in remand custody.
- 2 Whether the High Court, in reducing the sentence to 10 years, already considered the time spent in remand.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the High Court, in its earlier judgment reducing the applicant's sentence to 10 years, had expressly acknowledged the applicant's period in custody and directed the sentence to run from the date of conviction. This demonstrated that the time spent in remand was already factored into the sentence. Therefore, there was no basis for further review or reduction of the sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Tanui v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E065 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 21736 (KLR) (10 August 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 21736 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E065 of 2022
RN Nyakundi, J
August 10, 2023
Between
Moses Kibitok Tanui
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Arising from Iten CMCCRC 1057 of 2016. )
Ruling
Coram:Before Hon. Justice R. NyakundiMr. Martim for the AppellantMr. Okok for DPP 1. The applicant approached this court vide a notice of motion application filed on August 23, 2022 seeking for a review of his sentence to consider the time spent in remand. The applicant was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code in Iten CMCCRC 1057 of 2016. He was convicted and sentenced to death, which sentence was reduced to 10 years’ imprisonment vide High Court Criminal Appeal No 124B of 2019.
Analysis & Determination 2. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:-“Subject to the provisions of Section 38 of the Penal Code, 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 sub section (1) has prior, to such sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.”
3. According to The Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines:“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.”
4. I have perused the judgement of the high court by Hon Justice HA Omondi and she acknowledged that the appellant had been in custody since 2016. She directed the sentence run from the date of conviction at paragraph 19 of her judgement. It is my considered view that in stating that the sentence run from the date of conviction, after acknowledging how long the appellant had been in custody, she had considered the time spent in remand when sentencing him to 10 years’ imprisonment. This is compounded with the fact that the applicant was charged, tried and convicted in the same year.
5. In the premises, the application is hereby dismissed.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT ELDORET ON THIS 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE