Tuiya v Republic (Criminal Revision E055 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8755 (KLR) (22 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8755 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA CRIMINAL REVISION E055 OF 2026 DR KAVEDZA, J JUNE 22, 2026 BETWEEN KIPRONO ARAP TUIYA ....................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the ofience of Dealing in Trophy of Endangered Wildlife Species Contrary to Section 92 (2) of the as read with Section 105 (1) (A) of Wildlife Conservation and Management Act Cap 376 Laws of Kenya. He was sentenced to serve 5 years imprisonment. He has now filed an application seeking revision of sentence. 2. He filed an affidavit in support of his motion. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time he spent in remand custody during the computation of sentence. 3. The applicant filed the present application dated seeking sentence review. He prayed that the time spent in remand custody to be considered during the computation of her sentence. 4. The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already spent in custody. The duty to take in account the period an accused person had remained in custody in sentencing under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is couched in mandatory terms was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs. Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR and more recently in the High Court case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR. 5. It is therefore clear that it is mandatory that the period which an accused has been held in custody prior to being sentenced be taken into account in meting out the sentence where it is not hindered by other provisions of the law. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8755/eng@2026-06-22 1
page 1 of 2
6. I have perused the original record and I find the trial court considered the mitigation before sentencing the applicant. The court further noted that the time the accused had spent in remand custody had specifically been considered during the computation of the sentence. 7. The upshot of the above is that the application is dismissed for lacking in merit. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 22ND OF JUNE 2026. _________________ D. KAVEDZA JUDGE In the presence of: Applicant Present Mutuma for the Respondent Karimi Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8755/eng@2026-06-22 2
page 2 of 2