https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10774
The court held that the sentencing directions contained an error apparent on the face of the record because Section 333(2) CPC is mandatory and the applicant’s remand period had to be computed from the date of arrest to the date of sentencing. It therefore amended the final directions to reflect that position.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 10774 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Willy Wafula Wanjala; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E094 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application to Clarify/amend Sentence Computation Under Section 333(2) CPC
- Outcome
- Application allowed in substance; final sentencing directions amended.
- Judges
- ["E Ominde"]
- Legal Topics
- Remand Custody Credit, Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, Correction of Error Apparent on the Face of the Record, Inherent Jurisdiction, Sentence Computation
- 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
Willy Wafula Wanjala
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application to Clarify/amend Sentence Computation Under Section 333(2) CPC
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should correct the sentencing directions to properly reflect credit for time spent in remand custody under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the inconsistency in the earlier judgment amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record.
- 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to amend the final directions despite another judge having delivered the original judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the sentencing directions contained an error apparent on the face of the record because Section 333(2) CPC is mandatory and the applicant’s remand period had to be computed from the date of arrest to the date of sentencing. It therefore amended the final directions to reflect that position.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in substance; final sentencing directions amended.
Orders
- The period of three years spent in remand custody is to be computed from the date of arrest to the date of sentencing by the trial court.
- Right of appeal within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Wanjala v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E094 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10774 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10774 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bungoma Miscellaneous Criminal Application E094 of 2025 E Ominde, J July 16, 2026 Between Willy Wafula Wanjala Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant, Willy Wafula Wanjala moved the court by way of a letter dated 23rd January 2026. Upon the court reading the letter, it was not able to appreciate exactly what it is that the Applicant was moving the court for. The court therefore issued a Production Order for the Applicant to be availed to court so that he can properly explain himself. 2.The Applicant was availed on18th June 2026. He explained to court that by way of a Notice of Motion dated 17th July 2025, he had sought among other prayers that the court factors into his sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment the period of 3 years that he had spent in remand custody before sentence as provided under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 3.That his application was considered in it entirety and the Hon Justice B’wononga in his Judgement delivered on 25th January 2022 allowed this aspect of his Application. That the Hon Judge in allowing this particular limb of his Application indicated that the period was to run from the date of his incarceration to the date of sentencing. 4.That However, at the conclusion of the judgement, the Hon Judge directed that the period that he had spent in remand was to run from the date of his judgement therefore making it difficult for the prison authorities to interpret the judgement and compute the relevant period into his sentence. He was therefore seeking that the court reviews the judgement and gives the correct interpretation of Section 333(2) of the CPC to enable the computation to be done. 5.I have considered these representations and without going into much ado about the issue raised, the fact of the matter is that Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is a mandatory provision. It provides for the computation of the period that an accused person spent in remand custody before sentence in the primary case as heard before the trial court. It is clear therefore that this is an error that is apparent on the face of the record. 6.This being the case, it is my very well considered opinion that this court, being of a concurrent jurisdiction with B’wononga J (as he then was), has the requisite inherent power, mandate and jurisdiction to rectify this error, in the interest of justice, so as to ensure that the ends of justice for the Applicant herein are met. 7.In this regard, I now hereby amend the final directions of the court to read that the period of three years that the Applicant spent in remand custody is to be computed to run from the date of his arrest to the date of his sentencing by the trial court. 8.It is so ordered. Right of Appeal 14 days. READ DATED AND SIGNED AT BUNGOMA ON 16TH JULY 2026E. OMINDEJUDGE