Keroro v Republic (Criminal Appeal 332 of 2019) [2025] KECA 2016 (KLR) (21 November 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KECA 2016 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Criminal Appeal 332 of 2019
MS Asike-Makhandia, HA Omondi & LK Kimaru, JJA
November 21, 2025
Between
Geofrey Akunga Keroro
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nyamira (E. N. Maina, J.) dated 20th December, 2018 in HCCRA No. 42 of 2015
Criminal Case 42 of 2015
)
Judgment
1.This is a first appeal arising from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nyamira (Maina, J.) delivered on 20th December, 2018, in Criminal Case No. 42 of 2015. The appeal is against sentence only.
2.A brief background to this appeal is that the appellant was charged before the trial court with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence alleged that on 5th July, 2010, at Itibo Location, Bosianga II Sub-Location, in Nyamira County, the appellant murdered Yunia Nyakerario Keroro.
3.The appellant denied the charge after which a full trial ensued, with the prosecution calling seven witnesses, while the appellant elected to give an unsworn statement in his defence.After full trial, the appellant was found guilty as charged. Upon his conviction, the appellant was sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment.
4.In his appeal before us, the appellant challenges the custodial sentence imposed by the trial court on grounds that the learned Judge failed to consider the nine (9) year period spent by the appellant in remand custody prior to the conclusion of the trial and his conviction.
5.It was the appellant’s submission that although the trial court noted in the sentencing notes that the appellant had spent nine years in remand custody, the trial court failed to specify when time would start running, with respect to the appellant’s custodial sentence that was imposed. The appellant urged that the proviso to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the Court to take into account time already served, if a convicted person was in remand custody. He was of the view that the trial court failed to compute the time he spent in remand custody when awarding his custodial sentence.
6.The appeal was opposed. Learned Prosecution Counsel Mr. Mwangi submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial court was commensurate to the offence committed. He submitted that the sentence imposed was not the maximum sentence provided by the law, and that the trial court took into consideration the nature and circumstances of the offence. He explained that that the time spent by the appellant in remand custody was considered when the trial Court meted out the custodial sentence.
7.We have carefully considered the record of appeal, the submissions by both parties, and the law. This is an appeal against the sentence. Notably, the appellant has not contested the sentence imposed on him, but rather prays that the time he was in remand custody prior to his conviction be taken into account.
8.The conditions upon which the appellate court may interfere with the sentence of a trial court were set out in the case of Bernard Kimani Gacheru vs. Republic [2002] eKLR where this Court held as follows:
9.As stated earlier in this judgment, the appellant challenged the sentence awarded by the trial court on the ground that the trial court failed to consider the nine years he spent in custody while on trial. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code directs that such time spent in remand custody shall be computed in a convicted person’s custodial sentence. The said section provides as follows:
10.We have perused the trial court record. The trial court noted as follows in the pre-sentencing notes:
11.It is clear from the trial court comments that the nine years the appellant spent in custody prior to his sentence was considered by the trial court in computing his sentence. The trial court did not mete out the maximum sentence provided by the law which is death, but rather settled on a reduced custodial sentence of twenty (20) years, after considering the appellant’s mitigation, as well as time spent in remand custody prior to his conviction. The sentence was therefore legal and properly imposed.
12.In the premises, the appellant’s appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
13.Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER,2025.ASIKE-MAKHANDIA............................ JUDGE OF APPEALH.A. OMONDI............................JUDGE OF APPEALL. KIMARU............................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of original.DEPUTY REGISTRAR.