1. The Applicant by way of an undated Notice of Motion filed in court on 9 th September 2025 moved this court under Article 165 of the Constitution and Sections 333 (2) and 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to consider the period he had spent in remand custody before his conviction and sentence.
2. According to the applicant he had already spent 5 months in custody before the conviction and sentence.
3. The applicant was charged with the offence of Impersonating a police officer Contrary to Section 101 (B) of the Nation Police Service Act 2011 .
4. The applicant was sentenced to a fine of Ksh. 100,000/= in default 1 (one) year in prison in count 1 for impersonating a police officer.
5. He faced two other counts of making and uttering a false document and was sentenced to serve 1 (one) year imprisonment for each count.
6. The sentences were to run concurrently. He was sentenced on 28/8//2025 so he has been serving sentence since then.
7. The accused is now serving his sixth month in prison.
8. The state did not oppose the application.
9. I have carefully perused the record of the trial court and noted that although the learned Honourable magistrate stated in the sentencing notes that “I have considered the accused mitigation together with the time spent in custody …” she did not specify whether the 1year period of imprisonment would be computed from the date of arrest or sentence.
10. The court must come out clearly on that aspect of sentencing as is required under Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. During one of the prison visits, the prison authorities expressed concern over the issue of ambiguity in sentencing which often presents them a challenge in computing sentences.
11. It is not enough to consider the period spent in custody before conviction and sentence, but it must be discounted from the period of imprisonment. To do otherwise would be prejudicial to an accused person and the accused would be denied the benefit of the provisions of Section 333(2) of the CPC. The mischief that the legislature intended to cure by enacting Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was that no one should spent time in prison pending trial and that period is not discounted from their sentence. The liberty of the individual is taken away during that period and the period therefore should be reckoned during sentencing.
12. The sentences of 1 year each imposed against the accused in this matter were to run concurrently.
13. It is the finding of this court that the sentence of 1 year ought to have been computed from the date the applicant was placed in prison remand.
14. Accordingly, the application succeeds and the period of 1year imprisonment shall run from the date the Applicant was placed in remand custody.
15. It is so ordered.
NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 130 OF 2025 – Stephano Nganga Kefa –vs- Republic 1
2. According to the applicant he had already spent 5 months in custody before the conviction and sentence.
3. The applicant was charged with the offence of Impersonating a police officer Contrary to Section 101 (B) of the Nation Police Service Act 2011 .
4. The applicant was sentenced to a fine of Ksh. 100,000/= in default 1 (one) year in prison in count 1 for impersonating a police officer.
5. He faced two other counts of making and uttering a false document and was sentenced to serve 1 (one) year imprisonment for each count.
6. The sentences were to run concurrently. He was sentenced on 28/8//2025 so he has been serving sentence since then.
7. The accused is now serving his sixth month in prison.
8. The state did not oppose the application.
9. I have carefully perused the record of the trial court and noted that although the learned Honourable magistrate stated in the sentencing notes that “I have considered the accused mitigation together with the time spent in custody …” she did not specify whether the 1year period of imprisonment would be computed from the date of arrest or sentence.
10. The court must come out clearly on that aspect of sentencing as is required under Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. During one of the prison visits, the prison authorities expressed concern over the issue of ambiguity in sentencing which often presents them a challenge in computing sentences.
11. It is not enough to consider the period spent in custody before conviction and sentence, but it must be discounted from the period of imprisonment. To do otherwise would be prejudicial to an accused person and the accused would be denied the benefit of the provisions of Section 333(2) of the CPC. The mischief that the legislature intended to cure by enacting Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was that no one should spent time in prison pending trial and that period is not discounted from their sentence. The liberty of the individual is taken away during that period and the period therefore should be reckoned during sentencing.
12. The sentences of 1 year each imposed against the accused in this matter were to run concurrently.
13. It is the finding of this court that the sentence of 1 year ought to have been computed from the date the applicant was placed in prison remand.
14. Accordingly, the application succeeds and the period of 1year imprisonment shall run from the date the Applicant was placed in remand custody.
15. It is so ordered.
NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 130 OF 2025 – Stephano Nganga Kefa –vs- Republic 1