Losiangura v Republic
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal kept a 15-year manslaughter sentence but ordered that 8 months spent in custody before sentencing be deducted from the prison term.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Credit for time spent in custody before sentencing
The 8 months spent in custody prior to sentencing must be taken into account by the prison authorities when computing the appellant's days in prison.
Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obliges a sentencing court to take into account the period an accused spent in custody before sentence. The Court adopted the reasoning in Ahamad Abulfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic, where the failure to account for pre-sentence custody was a ground for faulting the court below. The appellant was in custody for about 8 months, so an order directing the prison authorities to credit that period was made.
Severity of the 15-year sentence for manslaughter on a guilty plea
The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was reasonable and not harsh or excessive; the Court declined to interfere.
The Court emphasised consistency in sentencing and surveyed comparable decisions: Mathew Langat v Republic and Eiton v Republic, where the High Court imposed 15 years for manslaughter, and Abraham Kibet Chebukwa v Republic, where this Court affirmed a 15-year sentence. Against those precedents, the appellant's sentence could not be said to be manifestly excessive, and appellate interference was not warranted.
Reliance on the pre-sentence report
The trial court was within its discretion to consider the pre-sentence report; no fault was found with the learned Judge.
The Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023 direct courts to request and consider pre-sentence reports in appropriate cases, while noting the reports are not binding. The record showed the report was availed and counsel had sight of it before sentencing; neither the appellant nor his counsel objected to its contents or the procedure of its preparation. The complaint of irrelevant considerations therefore failed.
Whether the appellant's mitigation was considered
The record showed the appellant's mitigation was presented and heard; the ground failed.
The Court reviewed the sentencing proceedings and found that on 6th November 2019 the appellant's counsel presented mitigation, after which the learned Judge indicated she had heard it and called for a pre-sentence report. The record contradicted the appellant's assertion that mitigation was ignored, so this ground of appeal also failed.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's sentence unless it acted on a wrong principle, ignored material factors, took into account irrelevant considerations, or the sentence is manifestly excessive.
- Under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the period spent in custody before sentencing must be taken into account in computing the sentence.
- A trial court acts within its discretion in considering a pre-sentence report where no objection is raised to its contents or preparation.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The period of 8 months spent by the appellant prior to his sentencing be taken into account by the prison authorities when computing the appellant's days in prison
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kapenguria
- Kapenguria HC CRC No. 4 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over a first appeal from the High Court in a criminal matter (Criminal Procedure Code); no specific constitutional provision cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Losiangura v Republic", Case Analysis (2024). Criminal Appeal 68 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1855/eng@2024-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.