'
The applicant in this matter was charged with the offences of robbery with violence under Section 296 (2) Counts 1 and II and a third Count of Rape under Section 3(1) ( c) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006.
The applicant having been found guilty in all the 3 counts he was sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment in the 1 st two Counts and a further 40 years imprisonment in relation to the offence of rape.
The sentences were to run concurrently.
The applicant has approached this court claiming that he was held in custody for a period of about 4 years and 3 months and that the trial court did not take into account that period during sentencing.
It was his prayer that this court reviews the sentence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution as read together with Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
This court called for the record of the lower court and upon perusal of the record, I have noted that in the sentencing notes of 5 th August 2022 the learned Honorable magistrate stated:-
“…. In sentencing I have considered the offence and penalty under the law. I have also considered the time spent by the accused In custody from the date of arrest being the 28 th April 2018 to date being 4 years, 3 months and 7 days in custody…”
It is therefore clear from a reading of the record that section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was complied with by the trial court and that this application is a non-starter and fit for dismissal.
The applicant should remain eternally grateful to the court for giving him sentences that were manifestly lenient more so in relation to the robbery charge.
It is beastly and dehumanizing to rob and rape someone. The trial magistrate was manifestly lenient considering that the victim will forever remain with the trauma suffered in the hands of the applicant.
The application is dismissed and the applicant shall continue to serve the remainder of the prison term.
I have noted that the applicant had also filed Misc. CRAPP E488 of 2024 seeking similar orders.
The two applications were considered together and are herby dismissed.
The welfare officer in charge of the prison where the applicant is held should ensure that the applicant doesn’t file any other application on the issue of sentence before this court.
The prison records should reflect so in order to obviate the multiplicity of applications that prisoners keep filing on the same subject basically wasting valuable judicial time and reasons.
It is so ordered.
'
The applicant in this matter was charged with the offences of robbery with violence under Section 296 (2) Counts 1 and II and a third Count of Rape under Section 3(1) ( c) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006.
The applicant having been found guilty in all the 3 counts he was sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment in the 1 st two Counts and a further 40 years imprisonment in relation to the offence of rape.
The sentences were to run concurrently.
The applicant has approached this court claiming that he was held in custody for a period of about 4 years and 3 months and that the trial court did not take into account that period during sentencing.
It was his prayer that this court reviews the sentence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution as read together with Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
This court called for the record of the lower court and upon perusal of the record, I have noted that in the sentencing notes of 5 th August 2022 the learned Honorable magistrate stated:-
“…. In sentencing I have considered the offence and penalty under the law. I have also considered the time spent by the accused In custody from the date of arrest being the 28 th April 2018 to date being 4 years, 3 months and 7 days in custody…”
It is therefore clear from a reading of the record that section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was complied with by the trial court and that this application is a non-starter and fit for dismissal.
The applicant should remain eternally grateful to the court for giving him sentences that were manifestly lenient more so in relation to the robbery charge.
It is beastly and dehumanizing to rob and rape someone. The trial magistrate was manifestly lenient considering that the victim will forever remain with the trauma suffered in the hands of the applicant.
The application is dismissed and the applicant shall continue to serve the remainder of the prison term.
I have noted that the applicant had also filed Misc. CRAPP E488 of 2024 seeking similar orders.
The two applications were considered together and are herby dismissed.
The welfare officer in charge of the prison where the applicant is held should ensure that the applicant doesn’t file any other application on the issue of sentence before this court.
The prison records should reflect so in order to obviate the multiplicity of applications that prisoners keep filing on the same subject basically wasting valuable judicial time and reasons.
It is so ordered.
'