[2025] KEHC 9643 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9643 (KLR)

The court held that the application for sentence review under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code lacked merit because the trial judge had already considered the period spent in remand custody when imposing the 48-month sentence. The absence of an explicit reference to section 333(2) in the sentencing remarks did not negate the fact that the remand period was factored in. Therefore, there was no basis for further reduction of the sentence, and the application was dismissed under section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9643 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Abigael Cherotich Yego; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E148 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
RN Nyakundi
Legal Topics
Sentence Review, Remand Period Credit, Application of Section 333 2 Cpc, Constitutional Rights in Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentence Review Remand Period Credit Application of Section 333 2 Cpc Constitutional Rights in Sentencing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abigael Cherotich Yego

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a reduction of sentence by factoring in the period spent in remand custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court considered the remand period at the time of sentencing as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether the application for sentence review has merit in light of the previous consideration of remand time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for sentence review under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code lacked merit because the trial judge had already considered the period spent in remand custody when imposing the 48-month sentence. The absence of an explicit reference to section 333(2) in the sentencing remarks did not negate the fact that the remand period was factored in. Therefore, there was no basis for further reduction of the sentence, and the application was dismissed under section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for sentence review is dismissed under section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code.