[2023] KEHC 2456 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 2456 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial court had expressly stated in its order that it took into account the period the accused had been in custody prior to sentencing. Therefore, the requirements of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code were satisfied. The application for revision was found to have no merit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 2456 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Geoffrey Mungai Waweru; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 82 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
Sentencing Procedure, Pre Sentence Custody, Commencement of Sentence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Procedure Pre Sentence Custody Commencement of 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Mungai Waweru

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the trial court properly took into account the period the applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial court had expressly stated in its order that it took into account the period the accused had been in custody prior to sentencing. Therefore, the requirements of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code were satisfied. The application for revision was found to have no merit and was dismissed accordingly.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.