REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E118 OF 2024
MUTIO MUOKI...........................…………………………….......APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...............................................……..................RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
MACHAKOS HIGH COURT
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E102 OF 2024
SIMON MUISYO MUIA...................…………………………….......APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...............................................……..................RESPONDENT
RULING
- The Applicants, Mutio Muoki and Simon Munyao, have filed undated Notice of Motion applications. The same are for revision under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and it is supported by the affidavits of the Applicants. The applications seek that the period that the Applicants spent in remand custody be accounted for in their sentence.
- The Respondent has not opposed these applications but asked the court to peruse the High Court file record and consider the applications.
- Section 333(2) of the criminal Procedure Code provides that:-
“Subject to provisions of Section 38 of the Penal Code, every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day on which it was pronounced, except when otherwise provided in this code.
Provided hat where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody”.
- The record of the High Court indicate that the Applicants were first arraigned before the court on 6/3/2014 after they were arrested on 5/3/2014. They jointly faced a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The Applicants were never placed on bond pending trial. They were found guilty of the offence of murder and following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of FRANCIS KARIOKO MURUARETU & ANOTHER V REPUBLIC (2017) eKLR , they were each sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
- I have perused the sentencing on the record. In his ruling dated 18/9/2018, the Judge stated as follows:-
“After considering all factors herein, I find a custodial sentence is suitable in the circumstances. Each accused is hereby ordered to serve a sentence of twenty years imprisonment.
Orders accordingly”.
- The ruling does not give any directions on the period the Applicants spent in custody as they awaited the determination of their case. The trial court ought to have accounted for this period in the sentence.
- The Applicants were in custody for a period of approximately 4 years 6 months.
- Being entitled to this period that was not accounted for, I allow the Applicants applications (undated) and filed herein, and order that the Applicants do serve the sentence imposed against them by the trial court less 4 years 6 months, a period they remained in custody awaiting the outcome of their case.
- It is so ordered.
RULING WRITTEN, DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 17TH DECEMBER 2024
NOEL I. ADAGI
JUDGE
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS .17TH DECEMBER 2024
In the presence of:-
In person from Machakos main prison..... for Appellant
Ms Agatha................. for Respondent
Milly Grace................. Court Assistant