REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. E058 OF 2026 COLLINS OMONDI OTIENO………………………………….APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………….……………………….. ….RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant herein, vide his notice of motion dated 5 th May, 2026 seeks an order for the review of his sentence, so that the period that he spent in custody awaiting conclusion of his trial is taken into account, in line with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya, which provides that: 333(2) 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. 2. I have gone through the record of the lower court and note that during his trial, the Applicant remained remanded in custody for a cumulative period of 510 days, pending the 1|Page
page 1 of 4
conclusion of his trial. He was ultimately convicted and thereafter sentenced on 21st April, 2026 to serve 24 months imprisonment. The trial court further directed as follows: “The 14 months that he has been in remand will be deducted and he will therefore serve 10 months imprisonment.” 3. It is clear from the record of the trial court, which is before me, that the period that the Applicant remained in custody while his trial proceeded was taken into account by the trial court, as provided for under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. However, noting the number of days that he was remanded vis a vis the number of days (or months) that the learned trial Magistrate reduced from his sentence, one will notice that there was a discrepancy, in that the 510 day period is longer than a 14 month period. 5. The Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic [2018] eKLR held that: ““Taking into account” the period spent in custody must mean considering that period so that the imposed sentence is reduced proportionately by the period already spent in custody. It is not enough for the court to merely 2|Page
page 2 of 4
state that it has taken into account the period already spent in custody…”. 6. The Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines provides that: “The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already served in custody if the convicted person had been in custody during the trial. Failure to do so impacts on the overall period of detention which may result in an excessive punishment that is not proportional to the offence committed. In determining the period of imprisonment that should be served by an offender, the court must take into account the period in which the offender was held in custody during the trial.” 7. From the authority and the text above, the learned trial was under the obligation to reduce the sentence proportionately by an equal period. The trial court should have ordered that the precise period of 510 days be reduced from the sentence. 8. In the result, and considering the foregoing, the Applicant’s application is merited. I allow it and review the sentence only to the extent that 510 days (and not 14 months) shall be deducted from the sentence of 24 months imprisonment. The committal warrant shall be amended accordingly. 9. This file is closed. 3|Page
page 3 of 4
DELIVERED (virtually) DATED and SIGNED this 21st day of July, 2026. JOE M. OMIDO JUDGE APPLICANT: Present, virtually. RESPONDENT: Ms. Muema. COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma. 4|Page
page 4 of 4