RULING
1. The applicant was adjudged guilty of preparation to commit a felony contrary to section 308 (1) of the Penal Code . He was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years.
2. The current revision only seeks grant of credit for the period spent in remand custody.
3. I called for the records of the subordinate court. I also heard brief submissions today from both the applicant and the Republic.
4. Section 333 (2) of the Code, obligates the sentencing court to take into account the period spent in remand custody. In Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic , Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Criminal Appeal 135 of 2016 [2018] eKLR, the learned judges of the Court of Appeal called for a “more meaningful” application of that provision of the law.
5. I am now satisfied of the following set of facts: The accused was arrested on 25 th July 2025 and remained in custody until the date of sentence on 13 th November 2025. The trial court’s sentence was lawful. However, the learned trial magistrate did not credit him with any time spent in remand custody.
6. For all the above reasons and guided by section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code , I order that the period spent in remand custody from the date of his arrest on 25 th July 2025 to the date of sentence on 13 th November 2025 shall be deducted from the sentence.
7. The original lower court file shall now be returned to City Law Courts.
1. The applicant was adjudged guilty of preparation to commit a felony contrary to section 308 (1) of the Penal Code . He was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years.
2. The current revision only seeks grant of credit for the period spent in remand custody.
3. I called for the records of the subordinate court. I also heard brief submissions today from both the applicant and the Republic.
4. Section 333 (2) of the Code, obligates the sentencing court to take into account the period spent in remand custody. In Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic , Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Criminal Appeal 135 of 2016 [2018] eKLR, the learned judges of the Court of Appeal called for a “more meaningful” application of that provision of the law.
5. I am now satisfied of the following set of facts: The accused was arrested on 25 th July 2025 and remained in custody until the date of sentence on 13 th November 2025. The trial court’s sentence was lawful. However, the learned trial magistrate did not credit him with any time spent in remand custody.
6. For all the above reasons and guided by section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code , I order that the period spent in remand custody from the date of his arrest on 25 th July 2025 to the date of sentence on 13 th November 2025 shall be deducted from the sentence.
7. The original lower court file shall now be returned to City Law Courts.