Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtDismissedApplication dated 18th November, 2022 (case number not stated in judgment)

Tarasisio Kariuki Mucheru v Republic

High Court of Kenya
18 January 2024
LML. N. Mutende
855 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed that once a sentencing judge expressly states they considered your remand time, you cannot later win a sentence reduction under Section 333(2).

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Tarasisio Kariuki Mucheru, was convicted after full trial of stealing a motor vehicle contrary to Section 278A of the Penal Code and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. By an application dated 18th November 2022, he sought review of the sentence, specifically asking the court to deduct the two years and one month he had spent in remand custody pursuant to the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He swore an affidavit in support; the Prosecution, through Mr Mongare, left the matter to the court's discretion. The court held that Section 333(2) applies in mandatory terms and that accounting for remand time is an accused person's entitlement, citing Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic and Bukenya v Uganda for the proposition that the sentence must be reduced proportionately by the period spent in custody. However, on the facts, the trial court's sentencing remarks expressly recorded that it had taken into consideration the period the accused had been in custody, and the court found that the trial court 'did pronounce itself on the duration the applicant spent in custody.' Since the maximum sentence for the offence is fourteen years, the five-year sentence was legal. The application was accordingly dismissed. The judgment illustrates that a sentencing court's express statement that it considered remand time will defeat a later Section 333(2) review, even without a mathematical deduction.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial court complied with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Holding

The trial court did comply; it expressly stated it had taken into consideration the period the accused had been in custody, so no deduction was required

Reasoning

The court quoted the trial court's sentencing remarks showing it considered the remand period and mitigation. Applying Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed and Bukenya, the court held that where the sentencing court pronounces itself on custody time, the statutory requirement is met. The maximum sentence for stealing a motor vehicle is fourteen years, so the five-year sentence was legal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code applies in mandatory terms and taking the remand period into account is the accused person's entitlement
  • Taking into account the period spent in custody means reducing the sentence proportionately by that period, not merely stating it was considered

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review of sentence is dismissed
  2. 2.It is so ordered
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (review of sentence to account for remand period)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tarasisio Kariuki Mucheru v Republic", Case Analysis (2024). Application dated 18th November, 2022 (case number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/

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