REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT GARSEN MISC CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.E018 OF 2026 MARO SALIM GULU……………..….…………….………. APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………..……………………………...…. …….RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant has filed an application dated 21 st April 2026 seeking for review of his sentence of 20 years imprisonment for the offence of defilement Contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2006, on the ground that the trial court did not consider the time spent in custody when it sentenced him. 2. The applicant contends that he was arrested on 14/1/2016 and was sentenced on 3/8/2016. That the period he spent in custody was not computed in his 20 years sentence. That Article 50(2) (p) of the constitution provides that an accused person should have the benefit of the least severe of the prescabed punishment of an offence. 3. That the High Court in Jonah 87 others-v-Kenya prisons service of 20 other (petition 15 of 2020) (2021) KEHC 457 (KLR declared that the period spent in MISC.CR.APP.NO.E018/2026 RULING 1|Page
page 1 of 3
custody should be computed in the eventual sentence awarded to an accused person. 4. He further contends that this court is seized of competent jurisdiction under Article 165(3) (b) the constitution of Kenya 2010 to hear and determine the application. 5. I have considered the application and perused the records of the trial court and High Court filed by the applicant. The record indeed shows that the applicant was arrested on 14/1/2016 and sentenced on 3/8/2016. This means that he was in remand custody for close to 7 months before he was imprisoned. There is no record that he was on bond during the hearing. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a court when sentencing an accused person who has been in custody to take into account the time spent in custody awaiting trial. The judgment of the trial court does not indicate that the trial court considered the time spent in custody when it sentenced him. The High Court in its judgment also did not consider the issue. It is to be noted that the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory. The trial court was in error in failing to comply with the provisions of the section. I find the application to be merited and the time spent in custody should be discounted. 6. In view of the foregoing, I order that the sentence imposed on the applicant do commence from the date of his arrest, i.e, on 14th January 2016. MISC.CR.APP.NO.E018/2026 RULING 2|Page
page 2 of 3
Delivered, dated and signed at GARSEN this 28 nd day of July, 2026. J.N.NJAGI JUDGE In the presence of: Mr.Oluoch for Respondent Applicant – Present Manyani prison Court Assistant – Ms.Rahma MISC.CR.APP.NO.E018/2026 RULING 3|Page
page 3 of 3