Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KECA 207 (KLR)

Samuel Mulama v Republic

Court of Appeal of Kenya
29 February 2024
433 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal kept a 15-year defilement sentence but ordered that time spent in remand before conviction counts toward serving it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant was convicted by the SPM's Court at Mumias of defilement of a 16-year-old girl and, under Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act, sentenced on 12th March 2015 to 15 years imprisonment. His first appeal to the High Court against conviction and sentence was dismissed on 7th February 2019. His second appeal before the Court of Appeal at Kakamega, though the notice of appeal mentioned conviction and sentence, was pressed against sentence only. The Court, per a bench of Okwengu, Omondi and Ngugi JJA in a single judgment, held that the appellant had raised no grounds justifying interference with the sentence on second appeal, noting that he had not challenged the sentence in his first appeal either; the appeal against sentence was accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant's request that the period spent in remand custody between arrest and conviction be factored into computing his sentence was unopposed by the respondent and was consistent with the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court ordered that the 15-year sentence commence from 19th February 2014, the date the appellant was charged and remanded in custody. The decision affirms the High Court's dismissal while varying the computation of the sentence to credit pre-conviction custody. No costs order was made. This judgment binds subordinate courts on crediting remand periods under the proviso to Section 333(2).

Key legal issues

#
01

Interference with sentence on second appeal

Holding

The appeal against sentence was without merit; the Court declined to interfere with the 15-year sentence under Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act

Reasoning

The appellant's written submissions and plenary hearing presentation showed he appealed against sentence only. However, he identified no grounds warranting interference on second appeal, and notably had raised no grounds challenging the sentence in his first appeal to the High Court. On that basis the Court found no merit in the appeal against sentence and dismissed it, leaving the trial court's sentence intact.

p. 2
02

Computation of sentence to include pre-conviction remand custody

Holding

The sentence must commence from the date of the appellant's remand, 19th February 2014, under the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Reasoning

The appellant, having served 10 years, sought credit for the period in remand between arrest and conviction. The respondent did not oppose the request, and the Court held it was consistent with the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the period spent in custody before conviction to be counted in computing the sentence. The Court accordingly ordered the 15-year term to run from 19th February 2014.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The period a convict spends in custody on remand before conviction must be taken into account in computing the sentence, per the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the appellant's appeal against sentence
  2. 2.That in accordance with the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant's sentence of 15 years imprisonment shall commence from 19th February, 2014, the date he was charged and remanded in custody
On appeal from
High Court
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code (criminal appeal against sentence from the High Court's dismissal of a first appeal from the SPM's Court, Mumias)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel Mulama v Republic", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/207/eng@2024-02-29

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.