Justice Reuben Nyakundi /FILE

Read Also
Red hot Omanyala to orchestrate Kenya's 4x100m charge at World Relays today Athletics
Cup pressure peaks as Shabana host Kenya Police in blockbuster quarter-final Football
Upper Hill coach Walgwe unperturbed despite drawing giants in Prescott Cup group phase Rugby

Enjoying this article? Subscribe for unlimited access to premium sports coverage.
View Plans

A judge has reduced a 30-year prison term by two years for a man convicted of defilement.

In a ruling delivered on Monday, Eldoret High Court judge Reuben Nyakundi allowed an application by Paul Kinyanjui Chege, who had sought to serve the last two years of his sentence on probation.

The court directed that the committal warrant be amended to reflect a pre-sentence detention period of two years, thereby shortening his custodial term.

Chege was convicted of defilement and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment on December 20, 2007. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed in a judgment dated September 10, 2009.

He was arrested on August 14, 2007, and has remained in custody since then.

In his sworn affidavit, the applicant argued that he had served 18 years from the date of arraignment and urged the court to consider that this “could be sufficient imprisonment for offence”.

He further stated, “I possess skills that will benefit me and the society if given an opportunity through this application, as I am seeking an opportunity to be reintegrated into society while I am still energetic and able to work.”

Invoking Section 35 of the Penal Code and Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution, Chege asked the High Court to order that the remaining part of his sentence be served under non-custodial orders.

Justice Nyakundi, however, focused on the statutory requirement under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to account for pre-trial detention.

“The established standard credit for pre-sentence custody should be for each day of remand when the offender was not on bail pending the hearing and determination of his or her case,” the judge ruled.

“The purpose for credit for remand is intended to compensate for the dead time in remand which does not count towards parole eligibility in the same way as penitentiary sentence.”

The judge computed the applicant’s pre-detention period at two years and ordered that the prison committal warrant be reviewed accordingly.

While the court did not grant the request for non-custodial orders, it acknowledged the applicant’s argument that he had been in custody since arrest at a young age and had demonstrated good character for 18 years.

The state did not oppose the revision of the sentence to factor in remand time.