'
1. The applicant has moved this court seeking a review of its sentence under Articles 165(3)(a) and 159 of the Constitution; as well as section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He requests that the sentence be ordered to run concurrently form the date of arrest which is 19/6/2023.
2. In response the Respondent argues that the application is misconceived. They contend that the trial court already directed that the sentence was a “non-consecutive” which, in their view implies that the sentence should run concurrently.
3. The applicant was the 1st accused person in Mavoko Criminal Case No. 720 of 2023. He was charged with the offence of stealing of motor vehicle contrary to Section 268(1) as read with Section 278A of the Penal Code. In the alternative he was charged with handling stolen motor vehicle contrary to Section 322(2) of the penal code and maliciously damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the penal code. After the prosecution closed its case, the applicant was found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
4. Upon conclusion of the defence case, the trial court found the applicant guilty of the offence of stealing motor vehicle contrary to Section 278 A of the Penal Code and malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal code. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on count 1 and 2 years imprisonment on count two. The trial court directed that sentence would run “non-consecutively” and that sentence would be computed beginning 19/6/2023 the date of his arrest.
5. This court notes that the trial court used the term “non-consecutively” in its sentencing remarks. Conventionally, courts specify whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively. The use of the term non-consecutive is what has led to the filing of this application before this court.
6. This court notes that the applicant does not challenge the legality or severity of the sentence itself. Rather, he seeks clarification and interpretation of the trial court’s intention specifically whether the sentence was meant to run concurrently or consecutively from the date of arrest.
7. This court finds that the most appropriate forum to interpret the meaning of “non-consecutive” in this context is the trial court that issued the sentence. Accordingly, the matter will be referred back to the trial court for clarification.
8. The Deputy Registrar is hereby directed to transmit the Lower Court File (LCF) to the trial court that heard the matter within fourteen (14) days for the specific purposes of interpreting the sentencing order, Whether the sentence given is to run concurrently or consecutively.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this 9th day of October, 2025
'
1. The applicant has moved this court seeking a review of its sentence under Articles 165(3)(a) and 159 of the Constitution; as well as section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He requests that the sentence be ordered to run concurrently form the date of arrest which is 19/6/2023.
2. In response the Respondent argues that the application is misconceived. They contend that the trial court already directed that the sentence was a “non-consecutive” which, in their view implies that the sentence should run concurrently.
3. The applicant was the 1st accused person in Mavoko Criminal Case No. 720 of 2023. He was charged with the offence of stealing of motor vehicle contrary to Section 268(1) as read with Section 278A of the Penal Code. In the alternative he was charged with handling stolen motor vehicle contrary to Section 322(2) of the penal code and maliciously damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the penal code. After the prosecution closed its case, the applicant was found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
4. Upon conclusion of the defence case, the trial court found the applicant guilty of the offence of stealing motor vehicle contrary to Section 278 A of the Penal Code and malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal code. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on count 1 and 2 years imprisonment on count two. The trial court directed that sentence would run “non-consecutively” and that sentence would be computed beginning 19/6/2023 the date of his arrest.
5. This court notes that the trial court used the term “non-consecutively” in its sentencing remarks. Conventionally, courts specify whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively. The use of the term non-consecutive is what has led to the filing of this application before this court.
6. This court notes that the applicant does not challenge the legality or severity of the sentence itself. Rather, he seeks clarification and interpretation of the trial court’s intention specifically whether the sentence was meant to run concurrently or consecutively from the date of arrest.
7. This court finds that the most appropriate forum to interpret the meaning of “non-consecutive” in this context is the trial court that issued the sentence. Accordingly, the matter will be referred back to the trial court for clarification.
8. The Deputy Registrar is hereby directed to transmit the Lower Court File (LCF) to the trial court that heard the matter within fourteen (14) days for the specific purposes of interpreting the sentencing order, Whether the sentence given is to run concurrently or consecutively.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this 9th day of October, 2025
'