' .The Applicant filed the undated application seeking no prayers .I gather from the supporting affidavit that he is seeking that his remand period from 25.9.14 to 3.6.15 be considered .
The state replied that the application is not merited as the sentence was per the Muruateru ruling . The sentence was confirmed by the Court of appeal and so this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with it .
3. On whether this court ought to consider the remand period of the applicant ,this Court is guided by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code , which provides that :
(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.
In the case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 Others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 Others [2021] eKLR w Hon. G. V. Odunga J as he was then faced with a similar application held as follows;
A declaration that Trial Courts are enjoined by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code , in imposing sentences, other than sentence of death to take into account of the period spent in custody.
A declaration that those who were sentenced in violation of the said section are entitled to have their sentences reviewed by the High Court in order to determine their appropriate sentences.
A declaration that Section 333(2 ) CPC applies to the original sentence as well as sentence imposed during resentencing……….
4. The requirement to comply with Section 333(2) CPC is mandatory . It is clear from the record that Section 333(2) of the CPC was not complied with by the trial court. The offender was first remanded in custody on 26. 9.14 when his plea was taken and he was released on bond on 3.6.16 . I direct that the said remand period be taken into account in computing his sentence of 25 years imprisonment
DELIVERED AT KISII THIS 8 TH OCTOBER 2025 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE APPLICANT. MR KOIMA FOR THE STATE & CA KIPCHIRCHIR
'
The state replied that the application is not merited as the sentence was per the Muruateru ruling . The sentence was confirmed by the Court of appeal and so this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with it .
3. On whether this court ought to consider the remand period of the applicant ,this Court is guided by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code , which provides that :
(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.
In the case of Vincent Sila Jona & 87 Others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 Others [2021] eKLR w Hon. G. V. Odunga J as he was then faced with a similar application held as follows;
A declaration that Trial Courts are enjoined by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code , in imposing sentences, other than sentence of death to take into account of the period spent in custody.
A declaration that those who were sentenced in violation of the said section are entitled to have their sentences reviewed by the High Court in order to determine their appropriate sentences.
A declaration that Section 333(2 ) CPC applies to the original sentence as well as sentence imposed during resentencing……….
4. The requirement to comply with Section 333(2) CPC is mandatory . It is clear from the record that Section 333(2) of the CPC was not complied with by the trial court. The offender was first remanded in custody on 26. 9.14 when his plea was taken and he was released on bond on 3.6.16 . I direct that the said remand period be taken into account in computing his sentence of 25 years imprisonment
DELIVERED AT KISII THIS 8 TH OCTOBER 2025 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE APPLICANT. MR KOIMA FOR THE STATE & CA KIPCHIRCHIR
'