[2021] KEHC 2098 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 2098 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court had expressly considered the period the applicant spent in custody, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks which deducted three years from the total sentence. The applicant's mitigation regarding time spent in custody was addressed, and the sentence imposed was both legal and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 2098 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Violet Akinyi Onjiko; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E256 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Custodial Period Credit, Sexual Offences, Mitigation, Criminal Procedure, Appeal on Sentence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Custodial Period Credit Sexual Offences Mitigation Criminal Procedure Appeal on Sentence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Violet Akinyi Onjiko

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the period of 1½ years spent in custody by the applicant prior to sentencing should be credited towards her sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court properly considered the period spent in custody when passing sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court had expressly considered the period the applicant spent in custody, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks which deducted three years from the total sentence. The applicant's mitigation regarding time spent in custody was addressed, and the sentence imposed was both legal and proper. Therefore, there was no basis for further reduction or interference with the sentence, and the application lacked merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed wholly.