Koech v Republic (Criminal Appeal E170 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1348 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a 30-year sentence but ordered that two years spent in remand count toward it, under section 333(2).
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 30-year sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court
- 2.Whether the courts below failed to take into account the period the appellant spent in custody as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Key legal issues
#Interference with discretionary sentence on appeal
The settled test was not satisfied; the sentence of 30 years was upheld despite the court considering it severe in light of the appellant not being a repeat offender considerations.
The Court restated the Bernard Kimani Gacheru principle that sentence rests in the trial court's discretion and depends on the facts of each case. An appellate court may not substitute its own view merely because it would have imposed a different sentence. Here, the appellant's lack of remorse and the grievous nature of the injuries justified the sentence, so the discretion of the trial court was not shown to have been wrongly exercised.
Credit for time spent in custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Both the trial court and the first appellate court failed to take into account the period the appellant spent in remand; the Court directed computation of the sentence from the date of arraignment.
The record showed the appellant was arraigned on 3rd November 2011 and sentenced on 23rd December 2013, during which period he was in remand. The trial court did not factor that period into the sentence, and the High Court likewise failed to consider it when re-evaluating the sentence. The respondent conceded the appellant ought to have benefited from the provision, and the Court gave the computational direction.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's discretion on sentence unless the sentence is manifestly excessive, the trial court overlooked a material factor, took into account wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle.
- Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obliges a sentencing court, and the first appellate court reviewing sentence, to take into account the period a convicted person spent in custody.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The prison authorities are directed to compute the appellant's sentence from the date he was arraigned in court, 3rd November 2011
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya, Eldoret
- Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appellate jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code over an appeal on sentence from the High Court
Relief refused
#Setting aside the 30-year sentence and securing the appellant's liberty
The appellant was not remorseful and the injuries inflicted were grievous; the court saw no reason to interfere with the sentence
Costs
No costs order made.
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.
On appeal, the appellate court will not easily interfere with sentence unless, that sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, or that the trial court overlooked some material factor, or took into account, some wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle.
Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obliges a court passing a sentence to take into account the period a convicted person spent in custody.
Accordingly, the appeal is devoid merit and it is hereby dismissed. However, we direct the prison authorities to compute the appellant’s sentence from the date he was arraigned in court, that is to say, 3rd November 2011.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the appellant was arraigned on 3rd October 2011 but later states the arraignment date as 3rd November 2011; the final order adopts 3rd November 2011.
The judgment records the notice of appeal as dated 23rd November 2018 although the High Court judgment was delivered on 14th November 2019, an apparent chronological inconsistency.
The opening paragraph describes the appeal as being on sentence only, but the grounds of appeal reproduced in paragraph 5 attack the conviction.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koech v Republic (Criminal Appeal E170 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1348 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Criminal Appeal (Eldoret) – appeal against sentence arising from Eldoret High Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1348/eng@2026-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.