Kenya Case Law

Origicha v Republic

Origicha v Republic (Criminal Revision E118 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11768 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E118 of 2026

Judge

["DR Kavedza"]

The trial court complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the record showed it considered mitigation and expressly directed that the remand period be taken into account; therefore there was no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness justifying revision.

Source excerpt

• Revision of sentence
• Section 333(2) cpc
• Pre-trial remand custody
• Computation of sentence
• Grievous harm

Terer v Republic

Terer v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10991 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2026

Judge

["JC Mutai"]

The court held that it had jurisdiction to correct its own sentence because the application sought compliance with the mandatory proviso to Section 333(2) CPC, not a reopening of the appeal. The appellate judgment was silent on pre-sentence custody, so the court could not assume the period had been considered. Since the applicant was in custody for 8 months and 7 days before sentencing, the 10-year sentence was ordered to run from the date of arrest, 18 February 2021.

Source excerpt

• Sentence review
• Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
• Time spent in custody
• Functus officio
• Computation of sentence

Marionya v Republic

Marionya v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13277 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2026

Judge

["TW Cherere"]

The High Court revised sentence computation to credit the applicant with 38 days spent in lawful custody, applying section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

• Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
• Credit for pre-sentence custody
• Revision of sentence
• Computation of sentence
• Sentencing
• Criminal-procedure

Kabui v Republic

Kabui v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E027 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9864 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E027 of 2025

Judge

["AM Hassan"]

The applicant had been in custody for approximately nine months before sentence, and the record did not show that the trial court considered that period when imposing sentence. Section 333(2) CPC made crediting that time mandatory, so the sentence had to be recomputed and reduced to the period already served, with the applicant released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.

Source excerpt

• Computation of sentence
• Remand custody credit
• Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
• Revisionary jurisdiction
• Trafficking in narcotic drugs

Kiambi & another v Republic

Kiambi & another v Republic (Criminal Application E051 of 2025) [2026] KECA 793 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Application E051 of 2025

The appellants' 40-year imprisonment term must be calculated to begin from 12th May 2008, the date of their first arraignment, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and relevant guidelines and case law.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Computation of sentence
• Time spent in custody

Odhiambo v Republic

Odhiambo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E017 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 5089 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E017 of 2026

The High Court deducted 12 days of pre-sentence custody from a 10-year sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and closed the file.

• Sentencing
• Computation of sentence
• Pre-sentence custody period
• Credit-for-time-served
• Criminal-procedure-code

Cheruiyot v Republic

Cheruiyot v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E213 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 5236 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application E213 of 2024

The High Court dismissed an application seeking sentence computation under section 333(2) CPC, holding it lacked jurisdiction after an appeal had been determined.

• Computation of sentence
• Remand period
• Jurisdiction
• Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
• Sentence-computation
• Remand-period

Obiero v Republic

Obiero v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E219 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5054 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E219 of 2025

The High Court ruled that the trial court failed to apply section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and backdated the applicant’s 2-year sentence to the remand date.

• Sentencing
• Computation of sentence
• Stealing
• Sentence-computation

Salwa v Republic

Salwa v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Case E074 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5004 (KLR) (20 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Case E074 of 2025

The trial court failed to substantively comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not proportionately reducing the sentence to account for the period the Applicant spent in custody. The sentence must therefore run from the date the Applicant completed his previous sentence and was eligible for bond, being 31st August 2023.

Source excerpt

• Computation of sentence
• Remand custody period
• Section 333(2) criminal procedure code

Isembe v Republic

Isembe v Republic (Criminal Revision E022 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 4765 (KLR) (14 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E022 of 2025

The trial court failed to consider the period the Applicant spent in remand custody as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; therefore, the sentence must be adjusted to account for the fourteen months and twenty-five days spent in custody.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Computation of sentence
• Remand period
• Criminal revision