[2024] KEHC 2545 (KLR)
The court found that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was inapplicable because the sentence imposed by the trial court was a fine, not a direct custodial sentence. The custodial sentence would only arise upon default of payment of the fine. The trial court erred by imposing a default sentence of three...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 2545 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Godfrey Wamuta; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 29 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Ruling
- Outcome
- sentence varied
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Default Sentences, Remand Custody Credit, Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
- 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
Godfrey Wamuta
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have time spent in remand custody considered under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the default custodial sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful under section 28(2) of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was inapplicable because the sentence imposed by the trial court was a fine, not a direct custodial sentence. The custodial sentence would only arise upon default of payment of the fine. The trial court erred by imposing a default sentence of three years imprisonment, which exceeded the statutory maximum of 12 months for the fine imposed, as stipulated under section 28(2) of the Penal Code. The court therefore set aside the default sentence of three years and substituted it with a default sentence of 12 months imprisonment, maintaining the fine of Kshs. 100,000.
Court Disposition
sentence varied
Orders
- The sentence of a fine of Kshs. 100,000 in default to serve 3 years imprisonment is set aside.
- The applicant is to pay a fine of Kshs. 100,000 in default to serve 12 months imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Wamuta v Republic (Criminal Revision 29 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 2545 (KLR) (12 March 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 2545 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 29 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
March 12, 2024
Between
Godfrey Wamuta
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and after a full trial convicted for the offence of stealing motor vehicle parts contrary to section 279 (C) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 100,000 in default to serve 3 years imprisonment. In filed an application for sentence review. He urged the court to consider the time spent in remand custody pursuant to the provisions of section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. From the record, I note that the sentence imposed by the trial court was not a custodial sentence but the payment of a fine. The custodial sentence arises from the failure to pay the fine imposed by the trial court. In the premises, the provisions of section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable.
3. As for the fines imposed for the offence, it was at the court’s discretion. However, regarding the default sentence, the trial court erred in respect imposing a 3 year default sentence. The default sentence ought to have been 12 months imprisonment under section 28 (2) of the Penal Code, Cap 63 Laws of Kenya.
4. In the premises I hereby set aside the sentence of a fine of Kshs. 100, 000 in default to serve 3 years and substitute it with the payment of a fine of Kshs. 100,000 in default to serve 12 months imprisonment.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 12TH MARCH 2024. ...................................D. KAVEDZAJUDGE