Hudson Okonda Ochola v Republic

High Court of Kenya

1 October 2020

RNR. Nyakundi

758 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

If you are sentenced to jail, the court must count the time you spent in pre-trial custody toward your final sentence.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The petitioner, Hudson Okonda Ochola, was arrested on 20 October 2011 and charged the following day with the murder of Duncan Irungu Wambui, contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. On 22 April 2015, Odero J in Mombasa High Court Criminal Case No. 27 of 2011 convicted him and sentenced him to death. His appeal, Mombasa Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2015, was allowed by the Court of Appeal on 29 July 2016: the murder conviction was substituted with manslaughter and the death sentence replaced with twelve years' imprisonment running from the date of conviction by the trial court. The petitioner then filed this petition seeking that the six months he spent in pre-trial detention be counted as part of his sentence, and that he be released on probation or parole with the remainder of his sentence commuted to a non-custodial sentence, alleging discrimination in resentencing procedures. R. Nyakundi J applied Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires that a sentence take account of any period spent in custody prior to sentence. The court allowed credit for the six months of remand custody but declined to interfere with the lawful conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, finding the petitioner's argument for a non-custodial sentence unconvincing. The petition was disallowed in its entirety, with the petitioner to serve the remainder of the twelve-year sentence less the six months spent in remand.

Key legal issues

Credit for pre-trial detention

Holding

The six months spent in remand custody is to be counted as part of the twelve-year sentence

Reasoning

Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the proviso, requires that where a person was held in custody prior to sentence, the sentence shall take account of that period. The petitioner was in pre-trial detention for six months, so the remainder of his sentence is reduced accordingly.

p. 1

Non-custodial sentence / probation

Holding

Refused; the court declined to interfere with the lawful conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal

Reasoning

The petitioner stood lawfully convicted and sentenced of manslaughter by the Court of Appeal. He did not make a convincing argument for the benefit of a non-custodial sentence, and the court was hesitant to interfere with the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

Where a person sentenced to imprisonment was held in custody prior to sentence, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody

Court orders

1.Petition No. 14 of 2020 disallowed in its entirety
2.Petitioner to complete the remainder of his twelve (12) year sentence save for the six (6) months he was held in remand custody pending hearing and determination of his case

On appeal from: Court of Appeal; Mombasa Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked: Constitutional petition seeking credit for pre-trial detention under Section 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code and non-custodial sentence

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hudson Okonda Ochola v Republic", Case Analysis (2020). Petition No. 14 of 2020. Source:

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.