Karanja v Republic [2025] KEHC 4249 (KLR)

Karanja v Republic (Petition E013 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 4249 (KLR) (3 April 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4249 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Kerugoya

Petition E013 of 2023

EM Muriithi, J

April 3, 2025

Between

Isaac Mburu Karanja

Petitioner

and

Republic

Respondent

Ruling

1. The petitioner filed this petition on 7th September, 2023 seeking the following orders:1. A declaration that failure to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code institutes to unfair trial in sentencing.2. A declaration that failure by the sentencing court to take into account of the period spent in custody by the petitioner contravened Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 50(2) (p) of the Constitution.3. An order that the period spent in custody by the petitioner should be taken into account and hence deducted from the imposed sentence of 10 years.

2. On 31st August, 2020 the petitioner was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.

3. The particulars of the offence are that on 25th August,2020 at Kandongu location, Mwea West sub-county within Kirinyaga county unlawfully murdered Michael Njuguna Karanja.

4. The petitioner in this matter was arrested and charged in Criminal Case File No. 23/2020 at Kerugoya High Court for the offence Murder C/sec 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code.

5. On 28th September, 2020 he pleaded not guilty to the offence of murder.

6. On 1st July, 2021 he changed plea and pleaded guilty to the offence of murder. He was convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

7. After conviction and sentence the petitioner did not lodge any appeal to the Court of Appeal hence in this regard seeks court intervention in application of Article 27(1) of the Constitution of Kenya and sentence computation only in compliance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the following orders.

8. The Issue for determination is whether the petitioner was entitled to have the period spent in remand factored in the sentence.

9. Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution provides that:i.Subject to clause (5), the High Court shall have—1. (b)Jurisdiction to determine the question whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened;

10. The petitioner was arrested on the 31st August, 2020, took plea on 28th September, 2020 and on the 22nd July, 2021 sentenced to serve 10 years’ imprisonment. The period spent in custody was 1 year.

11. The Respondent is not opposed to the application under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

12. It is trite law that an accused who is convicted and sentenced to an imprisonment term is entitled to have the period of his pre-trial detention factored in his sentence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly so stipulate.

13. The petitioner was entitled to have the period that he had spent in remand between date of arraignment on 31/8/2020 and date of sentence on 22/7/2021 considered or factored in the sentence. This was not done. The State conceded to the application. The record shows that he was in remand custody for one (1) year. The same should be taken into account in reckoning his sentence of imprisonment for 10 years meted on him.

Orders 14. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Court makes an order, pursuant to section 333(2) Proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code, that the Applicant’s sentence of imprisonment for ten (10) years shall commence on 31/8/2020 when the applicant was arraigned in court and remanded to await his trial.

15. File closed.Orders accordingly.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025. EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAppearances:Mr. Mamba for DPP.Applicant in person.