Kiambi & another v Republic (Criminal Application E051 of 2025) [2026] KECA 793 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled a 40-year prison sentence must count time already spent in custody, starting it from the date of first arraignment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.When ought the substituted sentence of 40 years imprisonment imposed on 31st July 2025 to commence, given that the judgment did not indicate a commencement date?
- 2.Whether the period the appellants spent in custody before sentencing, under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, should be credited against the sentence.
Key legal issues
#Commencement date of a substituted custodial sentence and credit for pre-sentence custody
Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obliges the court to factor the period spent in custody into the sentence, so the 40-year term runs from the date of first arraignment, 12th May 2008.
The Court of Appeal's earlier judgment of 31st July 2025 substituted the death sentences with 40 years' imprisonment but did not state when the sentence would commence. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023 (paras 2.3.18-2.3.20) require courts to deduct pre-sentence custody time. The respondent's counsel confirmed the appellants were in custody from their first arraignment on 12th May 2008, and the Court verified this from the High Court proceedings. Prior decisions of the Court (Nyongesa v Republic; Ayako v Republic) support computing the sentence from the date of first arraignment.
Legal principles established
#- Where a court imposes a custodial sentence on a person who was held in custody prior to the sentence, the sentence must take account of, and run from, the period spent in custody by virtue of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court orders
#- 1.The appellants' imprisonment term of 40 years is to be calculated to begin to run from 12th May 2008, the date of their first arraignment in court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Meru
- Criminal Case No. 34 of 2008
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over its own judgments, invoked by Notice of Motion seeking clarification of the sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5 & 6 of 2019
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
We direct that the appellants’ imprisonment term of 40 years be calculated to begin to run from 12th May 2008, the date of their first arraignment in court.
It is so ordered.
when 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.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure' without the word 'Code', an apparent typographical omission.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiambi & another v Republic (Criminal Application E051 of 2025) [2026] KECA 793 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Criminal Appeal Nos. 5 & 6 of 2019 (Notice of Motion dated 13th October, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/793/eng@2026-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.