REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMABAY MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. E113 OF 2025 JOEL OCHIENG APPLICANT JUMA…….....…………….……..……..…..…………....…….…… VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………..........…. ………..RESPONDENT RULING 1. Before the Court is the Applicant's undated Notice of Motion seeking the benefit conferred under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by having the period spent in custody prior to the imposition of sentence taken into account in computation so that the sentence imposed is proportionately reduced by the period. 2. In her oral response to the application and submissions by the applicant, the learned counsel for the Respondent, Ms. Oduor, indicated that the Respondent does not oppose the application. 3. The record shows that the applicant was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. Upon conviction, he was sentenced, on 19th October 2021, to serve twenty (20) years' imprisonment term. 4. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code imposes a mandatory obligation upon a sentencing court to take into account the period an accused person has spent in custody prior to sentencing. The purpose of the provision is to ensure 1
page 1 of 3
that an offender does not serve a period of imprisonment in excess of that lawfully intended by the sentencing court. 5. The record shows that the Applicant was arrested on 2 nd November 2018 and remained in custody until 29th January 2019, when he was released on bond, having spent eighty-nine (89) days in remand custody. Thereafter, the Applicant failed to attend court, prompting the trial court to issue a warrant for his arrest. The proceedings further show that he was re-arrested and was back in custody on 18th June 2019. From that date, he remained in continuous custody until his conviction and sentencing on 19.10.2021 for that second remand incarceration, he served a period of 854 days. In the circumstances, the period of incarceration before sentence adds to a period of 943 days, two (2) years seven months and three days. 6. A perusal of the sentencing proceedings does not reveal that the trial court expressly or tacitly took into account the period the Applicant had spent in presentence custody. 7. The omission by the trial court to account for the period the Applicant spent in custody prior to sentencing amounted to non-compliance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and has the effect of having the applicant serve a greater and longer period than imposed. The Applicant is therefore entitled to the benefit of that provision. 2
page 2 of 3
8. Accordingly, in computing the Applicant's sentence the prison must give him credit of two years seven months and three days being the period, he spent in remand custody pending conviction and sentence. 9. It is so ordered. Dated, signed and delivered at Lodwar this 30th day of July 2026 Patrick J O Otieno Judge 3
page 3 of 3