1. The Applicant was charged in Nyamira MCCR E787 of 2025 for the offences of obstructing a police officer in the due execution of his duties and aiding and abetting the escape of a prisoner. Upon conviction, he was sentenced to serve imprisonment terms of 6 months and 12 months respectively, which sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
2. The Applicant has moved this court through the application dated 16th January 2026 seeking orders that the sentences imposed on him do run concurrently instead of consecutively. The Respondent did not oppose the application.
3. I have considered the application and the material placed before the court. The issue for determination is whether the sentences ought to run concurrently or consecutively.
4. On concurrency of sentences, I am guided by the principles articulated in Peter Mbugua Kabui v Republic [2016] eKLR where the Court of Appeal stated:
“As a general principle, the practice is that if an accused person commits a series of offences at the same time in a single act or transaction, a concurrent sentence should be given. However, if separate and distinct offences are committed in different criminal transactions, even though the counts may be in one charge sheet and one trial, it is not illegal to mete out a consecutive term of imprisonment.”
6. The Sentencing Policy Guidelines at paragraph 7.13 provide that:
“Where the offences emanate from a single transaction, the sentences should run concurrently. However, where the offences are committed in the course of multiple transactions and where there are multiple victims, the sentences should run consecutively.”
8. Additionally, Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court, in passing sentence, to take into account the period already spent in custody.
9. Having considered the circumstances of this case, and noting that the Respondent did not oppose the application, I am satisfied that this is a proper case for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant.
10. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The sentences imposed in Nyamira MCCR E787 of 2025 shall run concurrently and shall take effect from the date of arrest, namely 07th December 2025.
2. The Applicant has moved this court through the application dated 16th January 2026 seeking orders that the sentences imposed on him do run concurrently instead of consecutively. The Respondent did not oppose the application.
3. I have considered the application and the material placed before the court. The issue for determination is whether the sentences ought to run concurrently or consecutively.
4. On concurrency of sentences, I am guided by the principles articulated in Peter Mbugua Kabui v Republic [2016] eKLR where the Court of Appeal stated:
“As a general principle, the practice is that if an accused person commits a series of offences at the same time in a single act or transaction, a concurrent sentence should be given. However, if separate and distinct offences are committed in different criminal transactions, even though the counts may be in one charge sheet and one trial, it is not illegal to mete out a consecutive term of imprisonment.”
6. The Sentencing Policy Guidelines at paragraph 7.13 provide that:
“Where the offences emanate from a single transaction, the sentences should run concurrently. However, where the offences are committed in the course of multiple transactions and where there are multiple victims, the sentences should run consecutively.”
8. Additionally, Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court, in passing sentence, to take into account the period already spent in custody.
9. Having considered the circumstances of this case, and noting that the Respondent did not oppose the application, I am satisfied that this is a proper case for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant.
10. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The sentences imposed in Nyamira MCCR E787 of 2025 shall run concurrently and shall take effect from the date of arrest, namely 07th December 2025.