Case ID:184861

Evans Nyang’au Gadnar v Republic [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E019 of 2021

Parties:

Evans Nyang’au Gadnar v Republic

Date Delivered:

12 Oct 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Kisumu

Case Action:

Judgment

Judge(s):

Fred Andago Ochieng

Citation:

Evans Nyang’au Gadnar v Republic [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Kisumu

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KISUMU

MISC. CR. APPLICATION NO. E019 OF 2021

EVANS NYANG’AU GADNAR ………………..…….………… APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

REPUBLIC ……………………………………………………

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

The Applicant,

EVANS NYANG’AU GADNAR

, has invoked

Section 354

of the

Criminal Procedure Code

, seeking a review of the sentence which was handed down to him.

1.

He told this Court that he was convicted for the offence of

Robbery with Violence

contrary to

Section 296 (2)

of the

Penal Code

. The trial court then sentenced him to suffer death as by law prescribed.

2.

The Applicant told this Court that the death sentence was later

“substituted”

to 15 Years imprisonment.

3.

He said that he had now spent 10 years in custody, since the time when he was arrested.

4.

According to him, he had wasted his youthful days in jail, where he had stayed away from his parents and his family.

5.

He requested the Court to order that the remaining duration of the sentence be served through a non-custodial sentence.

6.

The Applicant also asked the Court to take into account the period of 8 months which he spent in custody, during the trial.

7.

Although the Applicant was directed to file and serve the Judgment through which the High Court had substituted the death penalty with a sentence of 15 Years imprisonment, the Applicant failed to do so.

8.

Secondly, the Applicant did not provide the Court or the Respondent with the record of the proceedings from the trial court.

9.

In the absence of the proceedings from the trial court, this Court regrets that it is unable to verify the period, if any, that the Applicant spent in custody whilst he was still on trial. Accordingly, I am unable to order that 8 months be taken into account when the actual period of incarceration was being calculated by the Prison authorities.

10.

I also find no basis in law for ordering that a sentence which had already been reviewed by another Judge of concurrent jurisdiction, be further reviewed.

11.

In the result, the application is dismissed.

DATED, SIGNED

and

DELIVERED

at

KISUMU

This

12

th

day of

October

2021

FRED A. OCHIENG

JUDGE