REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E118 OF 2026 SADIA ABDI ORIGICHA……...………….……….. …………….APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………………………….RESPONDE NT RULING. 1. The applicant was charged with and convicted of the offence of grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to seven (7) years' imprisonment. 2. Vide application dated 23rd July 2026, the applicant seeks revision of his sentence on the ground that the period spent in remand custody should be taken into account in computing his sentence. 3. The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code imposes a mandatory duty upon a sentencing court to take into account the period an accused person has spent in custody before sentence. This principle was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR, and was reiterated by the High Court in Vincent Sila Jona & 87 Others v Kenya Prison Service & 2 Others [2021] eKLR. 4. It is therefore settled that, unless otherwise provided by law, the period spent in pre-trial custody must be taken into account when imposing sentence. Page 1 of 2
page 1 of 2
5. I have perused the original trial court record. It is evident that, before passing sentence, the trial court considered the applicant's mitigation and expressly directed that the period spent in remand custody be taken into account in computing the sentence. The record therefore demonstrates compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. In the circumstances, I find no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness to warrant the exercise of this Court's revisionary jurisdiction. The application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Orders accordingly. Orders accordingly. Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 29th day of July 2026 __________________ D. KAVEDZA JUDGE In the presence of: Applicant Present Mutuma for the Respondent Karimi Court Assistant. Page 2 of 2
page 2 of 2