Sabina Njeri Wanyoike v Republic [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Explore the case summary of Sabina Njeri Wanyoike v Republic [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and implications in Kenyan law. Perfect for legal researchers and enthusiasts.

Case Brief: Sabina Njeri Wanyoike v Republic [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Sabina Njeri Wanyoike v. Republic
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Kerugoya
- Date Delivered: July 30, 2020
- Category of Law: Criminal
- Judge(s): L. W. Gitari
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case is whether the trial court failed to consider the period the applicant, Sabina Njeri Wanyoike, spent in remand when imposing her sentence, thereby violating her rights under the Constitution of Kenya.

3. Facts of the Case:
Sabina Njeri Wanyoike was arrested on June 29, 2014, and charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 15 of 2014. She was arraigned in court on July 2, 2014, and subsequently convicted and sentenced to eight years imprisonment on March 16, 2016. Wanyoike contended that she spent one year and nine months in remand awaiting trial, a period that was not considered by the trial judge when sentencing her. She argued that this omission constituted discrimination since other convicts had their remand periods taken into account.

4. Procedural History:
Wanyoike filed an application for review of her sentence under Article 50(2)(Q) of the Constitution, asserting that her right to a fair trial was violated by the failure to consider her time in remand. The State, represented by Mr. Ashimosi, did not oppose the application. The High Court reviewed the application, considering the relevant constitutional provisions and statutory requirements regarding sentencing.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced Article 50(2)(Q) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the right to appeal or apply for review. Additionally, Article 23(1) grants the High Court jurisdiction to hear applications for redress of rights violations. Section 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that any time spent in custody prior to sentencing must be considered in the final sentence.

- Case Law: The court did not reference specific prior cases but relied on the statutory provisions and constitutional rights to frame its decision. The principles established in previous cases regarding the right to a fair trial and the consideration of remand time were implicitly acknowledged.

- Application: The court found that Wanyoike was entitled to have her remand period considered in her sentencing. It noted that the trial judge did not account for the time she spent in custody, which was a clear oversight. The State's concession indicated that the application had merit, leading the court to conclude that the sentence should be revised.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of Wanyoike, ordering that her sentence of eight years imprisonment be computed from the date she was arraigned in court on July 18, 2014. This ruling underscored the importance of considering pre-sentence custody in sentencing decisions, reinforcing the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case as the State did not oppose the application, and the ruling was unanimous.

8. Summary:
The outcome of Sabina Njeri Wanyoike v. Republic resulted in the revision of her sentence to account for the time she spent in remand. This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to constitutional protections regarding the right to a fair trial and the legal requirement to consider pre-sentence custody in sentencing practices. The decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights within the criminal justice system.