Republic v Wabingwa (Revision Case E061 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 19507 (KLR) (3 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19507 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT LODWAR REVISION CASE E061 OF 2025 PJO OTIENO, J NOVEMBER 3, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ PROSECUTOR AND CHRIS BILA WABINGWA .......................................................................... ACCUSED RULING 1. The lower court file has been placed before the court pursuant to the notice of motion filed in court on the 12/8/2025. The motion seeks that the applicant be accorded the statutory benefit conferred by section 333(2) CPC. Such applications are considered by the court as seeking revision of the orders by the trial court pursuant to section 362 as read with 364 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The court has perused the trial court file and established that the applicant was apprehended on the 29/4/2023 and arraigned in court on the 2/5/2023, when they took the plea. Thereafter he remained in custody till the conviction was rendered on the 19/6/2023. 3. He was thus in custody throughout his trial and by law, the prison term imposed on him by the trial court ought to be computed from the date of arrest. It was not done. 4. That failure presents an incorrect interpretation and application of the law and order be revised. It is revised with directions that the sentence shall be computed commencing on the 29/4/2023. 5. It is so ordered. 6. Let the court file be closed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PATRICK J O OTIENO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19507/eng@2025-11-03 1
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.