1. The Applicant herein, vide the Notice of Motion dated 7th August, 2025 seeks an order for the review of her sentence, so that the period that she spent in custody awaiting conclusion of her trial is taken into account, in line with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya, which provides that:
333(2) Subject to the provisions of Section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code. Provided that 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.
2. I have gone through the record of the lower court and note that during her trial, the Applicant remained remanded in custody for a cumulative period of 521 days, pending the conclusion of her trial. She was ultimately convicted and thereafter on 3rd December, 2024 sentenced to serve 2 years imprisonment on each of the four counts that she faced. The trial court ordered that the sentences would run concurrently.
3. It is clear from the record of the trial court, which is before me, that the period that the Applicant remained in custody while her trial proceeded was not properly taken into account by the trial court, as provided for under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. In sentencing her, the trial court rendered itself as follows, in part:
“…….I note that the accused person has committed previous offences of a similar nature where she has served a prison sentence of 2 years and she also absconded a probation sentence. In the circumstances, I do not find her suitable for non-custodial sentence.
Consequently, in each count, the accused is committed to imprisonment for 2 years in each count (sic). I have also taken into account the duration she has been in custody. Sentences to run concurrently. Right of appeal 14 days.”
5. The Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic [2018] eKLR held that: -
““Taking into account” the period spent in custody must mean considering that period so that the imposed sentence is reduced proportionately by the period already spent in custody. It is not enough for the court to merely state that it has taken into account the period already spent in custody…”.
6. The Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines provides that:
“The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already served in custody if the convicted person had been in custody during the trial. Failure to do so impacts on the overall period of detention which may result in an excessive punishment that is not proportional to the offence committed. In determining the period of imprisonment that should be served by an offender, the court must take into account the period in which the offender was held in custody during the trial.”
7. From the authority and the text above, it was not sufficient for the trial court to merely state that he had taken into account the period that the Applicant had been in custody. The learned trial was under the obligation to reduce the sentence proportionately by an equal period. The trial court should have ordered that the period of 521 days be reduced from the sentence.
8. In the result, and considering the foregoing, the Applicant’s application is merited. I allow it and review the sentence only to the extent that the sentence of 2 years imprisonment on each count shall be reduced by 521 days. The committal warrant shall be amended accordingly.
9. This file is closed.
DELIVERED (virtually) DATED and SIGNED this 9th day of March, 2025.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
APPLICANT: Present, virtually.
RESPONDENT: Ms. Muema.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.
333(2) Subject to the provisions of Section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code. Provided that 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.
2. I have gone through the record of the lower court and note that during her trial, the Applicant remained remanded in custody for a cumulative period of 521 days, pending the conclusion of her trial. She was ultimately convicted and thereafter on 3rd December, 2024 sentenced to serve 2 years imprisonment on each of the four counts that she faced. The trial court ordered that the sentences would run concurrently.
3. It is clear from the record of the trial court, which is before me, that the period that the Applicant remained in custody while her trial proceeded was not properly taken into account by the trial court, as provided for under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. In sentencing her, the trial court rendered itself as follows, in part:
“…….I note that the accused person has committed previous offences of a similar nature where she has served a prison sentence of 2 years and she also absconded a probation sentence. In the circumstances, I do not find her suitable for non-custodial sentence.
Consequently, in each count, the accused is committed to imprisonment for 2 years in each count (sic). I have also taken into account the duration she has been in custody. Sentences to run concurrently. Right of appeal 14 days.”
5. The Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic [2018] eKLR held that: -
““Taking into account” the period spent in custody must mean considering that period so that the imposed sentence is reduced proportionately by the period already spent in custody. It is not enough for the court to merely state that it has taken into account the period already spent in custody…”.
6. The Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines provides that:
“The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already served in custody if the convicted person had been in custody during the trial. Failure to do so impacts on the overall period of detention which may result in an excessive punishment that is not proportional to the offence committed. In determining the period of imprisonment that should be served by an offender, the court must take into account the period in which the offender was held in custody during the trial.”
7. From the authority and the text above, it was not sufficient for the trial court to merely state that he had taken into account the period that the Applicant had been in custody. The learned trial was under the obligation to reduce the sentence proportionately by an equal period. The trial court should have ordered that the period of 521 days be reduced from the sentence.
8. In the result, and considering the foregoing, the Applicant’s application is merited. I allow it and review the sentence only to the extent that the sentence of 2 years imprisonment on each count shall be reduced by 521 days. The committal warrant shall be amended accordingly.
9. This file is closed.
DELIVERED (virtually) DATED and SIGNED this 9th day of March, 2025.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
APPLICANT: Present, virtually.
RESPONDENT: Ms. Muema.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.