Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
High Court revision on a cheating sentence: conviction was upheld, the fine-and-default imprisonment structure was found lawful, and custody credit of two days was ordered.
Odongo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E101 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11903 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The trial court failed to comply with Section 333(2) CPC by not crediting the applicant's pre-sentence custody, so the sentence had to run from the date of arrest. In light of favourable probation and prison reports, advanced age, exemplary conduct, and the fact that only a short custodial balance remained, the court exercised discretion to substitute the balance of the sentence with probation for one year.
Source excerpt
Bitamoi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E003 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12091 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the trial court did not comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because, although it mentioned custody time during sentencing, it did not show how that period was factored into the final sentence. Since the applicant had been in continuous custody from 30 August 2018 until sentencing on 6 August 2021, he was entitled to have his sentence computed from the arrest date.
Source excerpt
Juma v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E113 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12088 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Court found that the trial court did not expressly or tacitly account for the Applicant’s pre-sentence custody, which amounted to non-compliance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Applicant was therefore entitled to credit for 943 days, equivalent to two years seven months and three days, against his sentence.
Source excerpt
Juma v Republic (Criminal Revision E077 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11579 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant remained in remand throughout trial and the trial court failed to reckon with the period already spent in custody despite the mandatory requirement of section 333(2) CPC. That omission was an outright error correctable on revision, so the sentence had to be backdated to the date of arrest.
Source excerpt
Sinan v Republic (Criminal Petition E010 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11109 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court declined to review the sentence as such review was barred after the sentence had been confirmed on appeal, but held that the trial court failed to account for 9 months and 10 days the petitioner spent in custody before sentencing, which section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires to be deducted; the sentence was therefore ordered to run from the date of arrest.
Source excerpt
Kasivywa alias Kassim v Republic (Criminal Revision E334 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10521 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Revision)
The High Court found the convictions and nominal sentences lawful and appropriate, but held that the trial court omitted to credit the applicant with 7½ months spent in custody as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. After deducting that period and considering the concurrent sentences already served and remission, the court concluded that the applicant had served the sentence in full and must be released forthwith.
Source excerpt
Mrinzi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E122 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9451 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the sentencing court had already considered the accused's custody status and, since he had been on bond before sentence, there was no pre-sentence custody period to be taken into account under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
Kisule v Republic (Criminal Revision E110 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7909 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Judgment)
The court declined to reopen the conviction or sentence on jurisdictional and constitutional grounds because the first appeal had already been dismissed and the mandatory sentence remained lawful, but it found a clear sentencing error in the failure to credit approximately 14 months spent in pre-sentence remand custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; that period had to be deducted from the 20-year sentence.
Source excerpt
Natembea v Republic (Criminal Revision E033 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7334 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the Court lacked jurisdiction to revise its own earlier ruling; it was functus officio after the 14th August 2024 decision, and therefore could not entertain a fresh challenge on the alleged failure to credit pre-trial custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
Explore more
