Mulama v Republic (Criminal Appeal 180 of 2019) [2024] KECA 207 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal kept a 15-year defilement sentence but ordered that time spent in remand before conviction counts toward serving it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court should interfere with the sentence of 15 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court on a second appeal
- 2.Whether the period the appellant spent in remand custody before conviction should be factored into computing his sentence under the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Key legal issues
#Interference with sentence on second appeal
The appeal against sentence was without merit; the Court declined to interfere with the 15-year sentence under Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act
The appellant's written submissions and plenary hearing presentation showed he appealed against sentence only. However, he identified no grounds warranting interference on second appeal, and notably had raised no grounds challenging the sentence in his first appeal to the High Court. On that basis the Court found no merit in the appeal against sentence and dismissed it, leaving the trial court's sentence intact.
Computation of sentence to include pre-conviction remand custody
The sentence must commence from the date of the appellant's remand, 19th February 2014, under the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
The appellant, having served 10 years, sought credit for the period in remand between arrest and conviction. The respondent did not oppose the request, and the Court held it was consistent with the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the period spent in custody before conviction to be counted in computing the sentence. The Court accordingly ordered the 15-year term to run from 19th February 2014.
Legal principles established
#- The period a convict spends in custody on remand before conviction must be taken into account in computing the sentence, per the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the appellant's appeal against sentence
- 2.That in accordance with the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant's sentence of 15 years imprisonment shall commence from 19th February, 2014, the date he was charged and remanded in custody
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code (criminal appeal against sentence from the High Court's dismissal of a first appeal from the SPM's Court, Mumias)
Relief refused
#Interference with the sentence of 15 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court
The appellant raised no grounds justifying interference on second appeal, and had not challenged the sentence in his appeal to the High Court
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Accordingly we dismiss the appellant’s appeal against sentence but order that in accordance with the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant’s sentence of 15 years imprisonment shall commence from 19th February, 2014
it is consistent with the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which allows the period spent by a convict in custody before his conviction, to be taken into account in computing his sentence.
In efiect the appellant has not stated any grounds that would justify any interference by this Court on second appeal, with the sentence that was imposed upon him by the trial court.
Issues in the judgment
#The notice of appeal dated 14th February 2019 was against conviction and sentence, but the appeal before the Court was against sentence only as per written submissions and oral confirmation - a discrepancy noted by the court itself
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulama v Republic (Criminal Appeal 180 of 2019) [2024] KECA 207 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/207/eng@2024-02-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.