Obudo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E114 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8006 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8006 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION E114 OF 2025 A MABEYA, J JUNE 5, 2026 BETWEEN PETERLIS OPIYO OBUDO .................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. Peterlis Opiyo Obudo (‘the applicant’) was convicted in HCCR Case No. E024 of 2021 for Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. He was on 8/5/2025 sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. 2. By a Motion on Notice dated 24/7/2025, he has sought that his sentence be reviewed and section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code be complied with, that is, the time spent in custody be taken into consideration in computation of his sentence. 3. The State, through Prosecuting Counsel Mercy Mutheu Muema opposed the application vide a replying affidavit sworn on the 22/10/2025 on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the instant motion. 4. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: “ Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) 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 where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.” 5. That is an issue of law. The sentence was made by this Court. If the sentence was against that provision of the law, I do not think this Court has powers or jurisdiction to review the decision of a court of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8006/eng@2026-06-05 1
page 1 of 2
concurrent jurisdiction. If the applicant was aggrieved by that decision, that was an error of law which he should have appealed to the Court of Appeal. He cannot seek a review of that decision before this Court. 6. In any case and for the avoidance of doubt, looking at the sentence meted out by the Court, it is evident that the court complied with the provisions of section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Accordingly, the application is found to be without merit and is dismissed. Let him appeal to the Court of Appeal which has jurisdiction to review and re-look at decisions of the High Court. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. A. MABEYA, FCI Arb JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8006/eng@2026-06-05 2
page 2 of 2