RULING
1. The Applicant filed an Application dated 22nd January 2026 under a Certificate of Urgency seeking review of the sentence delivered on 26th April 2024 by the trial court. The Applicant relies on Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and seeks to have the period spent in custody taken into account in computing the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Background
2. The Applicant, Edward Wangila, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya.
3. The particulars of the charge were that on the 12th day of June 2022, at Masaek Village, Chongeiywo Location, Kosiro Sub-Location within Bungoma County, he murdered one Edwin Wanjala.
4. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found the Applicant guilty of the offence of murder and, upon conviction, called for a pre-sentence report.
5. Upon considering the pre-sentence report, the learned trial Judge sentenced the Applicant to ten (10) years’ imprisonment to be served as follows:
i. seven (7) years’ imprisonment; and
ii. three (3) years’ probation upon completion of the custodial sentence.
6. The learned trial Judge further directed that the Prison Authorities should take into account any remission to which the Applicant may be entitled under the law.
7. The Applicant contends that the period spent in remand custody prior to conviction was not considered in computing the sentence, contrary to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He therefore seeks a review of the sentence.
8. Learned State Counsel, Mr. Minishi, had no objection to the Application.
Issue for Determination
8. The sole issue for determination is:
Whether the period spent in custody during trial was considered in computing the Applicant’s sentence.
Analysis and Determination
9. Upon perusal of the sentencing ruling, I note that at paragraph 5 thereof, the learned trial Judge expressly considered the sentencing guidelines, the circumstances of the case, and the period the Applicant had spent in remand custody from June 2022. The Court has considered the sentence imposed herein together with the period the accused person spent in remand custody prior to conviction. In compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court confirms that the period already spent in custody was duly taken into account at the time of sentencing.
10. The Court is satisfied that the sentence imposed was arrived at after considering all relevant factors, including the mitigation tendered, the circumstances of the offence, and the period spent in pre-trial detention. The sentence therefore remains lawful, proportionate, and consistent with the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines and constitutional principles on fair trial and proportionality.
11. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for interference with the sentence on account of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the same having already been factored into the sentence imposed.
Final Orders
12. Consequently, I make the following orders:
a. The Application is hereby dismissed.
b. The Prison Authorities shall compute the remainder of the Applicant’s sentence taking into account remission, where applicable, in accordance with the law and as earlier directed by the trial court
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 28 TH DAY OF MAY 2026
CHELANG’AT MUTAI
JUDGE
1. The Applicant filed an Application dated 22nd January 2026 under a Certificate of Urgency seeking review of the sentence delivered on 26th April 2024 by the trial court. The Applicant relies on Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and seeks to have the period spent in custody taken into account in computing the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Background
2. The Applicant, Edward Wangila, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya.
3. The particulars of the charge were that on the 12th day of June 2022, at Masaek Village, Chongeiywo Location, Kosiro Sub-Location within Bungoma County, he murdered one Edwin Wanjala.
4. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found the Applicant guilty of the offence of murder and, upon conviction, called for a pre-sentence report.
5. Upon considering the pre-sentence report, the learned trial Judge sentenced the Applicant to ten (10) years’ imprisonment to be served as follows:
i. seven (7) years’ imprisonment; and
ii. three (3) years’ probation upon completion of the custodial sentence.
6. The learned trial Judge further directed that the Prison Authorities should take into account any remission to which the Applicant may be entitled under the law.
7. The Applicant contends that the period spent in remand custody prior to conviction was not considered in computing the sentence, contrary to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He therefore seeks a review of the sentence.
8. Learned State Counsel, Mr. Minishi, had no objection to the Application.
Issue for Determination
8. The sole issue for determination is:
Whether the period spent in custody during trial was considered in computing the Applicant’s sentence.
Analysis and Determination
9. Upon perusal of the sentencing ruling, I note that at paragraph 5 thereof, the learned trial Judge expressly considered the sentencing guidelines, the circumstances of the case, and the period the Applicant had spent in remand custody from June 2022. The Court has considered the sentence imposed herein together with the period the accused person spent in remand custody prior to conviction. In compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court confirms that the period already spent in custody was duly taken into account at the time of sentencing.
10. The Court is satisfied that the sentence imposed was arrived at after considering all relevant factors, including the mitigation tendered, the circumstances of the offence, and the period spent in pre-trial detention. The sentence therefore remains lawful, proportionate, and consistent with the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines and constitutional principles on fair trial and proportionality.
11. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for interference with the sentence on account of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the same having already been factored into the sentence imposed.
Final Orders
12. Consequently, I make the following orders:
a. The Application is hereby dismissed.
b. The Prison Authorities shall compute the remainder of the Applicant’s sentence taking into account remission, where applicable, in accordance with the law and as earlier directed by the trial court
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 28 TH DAY OF MAY 2026
CHELANG’AT MUTAI
JUDGE