REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA PETITION NO. 109 OF 2020 DONALD A. SHIRAKU.............................................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS...............RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The accused, Donald Amwayi Shiraku alias Kandamaji faces a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that: “On the night of 17th/18th October 2007 at Kalalani village, Mwavumbo Location in Kwale District, within Coast Province murdered ATHUMANI BAKARI.” 2. The Petitioner was convicted and jailed to serve 20 years on 2/12/2011. 3. The Petitioner now seeks to be released to time he spent in remand from 30/10/2007 to 2/12/2011. 4. The Petitioner seeks for the four (4) years of the pre-trial custody under Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that: “Subject to the provisions of Section 38 of the Penal code, every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this code. Provided that the person convicted under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take into account of the period spent in custody.” 5. It is clear that the law allows convict to have back time spent in remand. 6. this petition therefore has merit. The same is allowed. The Petitioner’s sentence shall be computed as from 30/10/2007. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. E. K. OGOLA JUDGE Judgment delivered via MS Teams in the presence of: Petitioner in person Ms. Anyumba for DPP Ms. Peris Court Assistant
Original judgment
Donald A. Shiraku v The Director of Public Prosecutions
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.