1. The applicant by way of an undated Certificate of Urgency brought under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code approached this court seeking to have the court review his sentence to take into account the period he had spent in remand before conviction and sentence.
2. This court called for the Lower Court file Milimani Chief Magistrates Case No. E542 of 2025 Republic Vs. Joseph Makau Mulatya in exercise of its powers under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Upon perusal of the trial court’s file, it turned out that the applicant and his co-accused in the Lower Court were sentenced to a period of 5 Years imprisonment on 18/11/2024. In his sentencing notes the learned Honorable magistrate stated that : “the 1 st , 3 rd and 4 th accused are each sentenced to serve five(5) years imprisonment from the date of arraignment in court.”
4. It follows therefore that the learned Honorable magistrate complied with ethe requirements of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and as a consequence therefore there is nothing to revise in this matter.
5. The prisons authorities to compute sentence from the date of arraignment.
6. It is the finding of this court that the jurisdiction of the court has been improperly invoked and considering that the applicant was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code the applicant should eternally thank the learned Honorable magistrate for imposing what is manifestly a lenient sentence on the circumstances.
7. The revision application has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. It is so ordered.
2. This court called for the Lower Court file Milimani Chief Magistrates Case No. E542 of 2025 Republic Vs. Joseph Makau Mulatya in exercise of its powers under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Upon perusal of the trial court’s file, it turned out that the applicant and his co-accused in the Lower Court were sentenced to a period of 5 Years imprisonment on 18/11/2024. In his sentencing notes the learned Honorable magistrate stated that : “the 1 st , 3 rd and 4 th accused are each sentenced to serve five(5) years imprisonment from the date of arraignment in court.”
4. It follows therefore that the learned Honorable magistrate complied with ethe requirements of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and as a consequence therefore there is nothing to revise in this matter.
5. The prisons authorities to compute sentence from the date of arraignment.
6. It is the finding of this court that the jurisdiction of the court has been improperly invoked and considering that the applicant was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code the applicant should eternally thank the learned Honorable magistrate for imposing what is manifestly a lenient sentence on the circumstances.
7. The revision application has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. It is so ordered.