Introduction
Timely delivery of services in the judicial system includes a prompt and effective disposition of legal issues and cases within an acceptable period. Timely provision of judiciary services relates to reduction of undue delay, optimization of court procedures and ensuring that justice is not delayed. This is an important concept to keep public trust in the legal system, rule of law and providing individuals and entities provided speedy resolution of their legal issues. Like in many other nations, the Kenyan legal system is essential in preserving social order, defending the rule of law, and preserving justice. The rule of law significantly influences daily actions of individuals and institutions democratic processes, and investment decisions. Courts uphold law and order, which promotes social, political, and economic development.
Ensuring timely service delivery is a crucial objective in the development of an equitable and efficient legal system. Like in many other nations, Kenya’s legal system is essential in preserving social order, defending the rule of law, and preserving justice. The difficulty, though, is in dealing with the lags and inefficiencies that impede timely administration of justice. The law requires that a case should not take more than one year before being ruled on after it is registered in the court. If a case takes more than a year in court before it is determined, it forms a backlog. This is in exception of some cases such as the presidential election petition that should be heard and determined within 14 days, (Judiciary Transformation Framework, 2012).
Despite the various reforms that have been instituted by the judiciary, there have been prevalent concerns, which include case backlogs, delayed rulings, delayed orders, among others. Cases in the Magistrate Court and High Court take more time to conclude compared to other courts. They form 73 per cent and 18 per cent of the case backlog, respectively. This blog focuses on prompt service delivery in the judiciary to reduce backlogs and offer prompt justice to the citizens.
Status of Service Delivery in the Judicial System
In 2011, the number of backlog cases was over 1 million. The then chief justice came up with reforms that aimed at improving efficiency in the judicial system and reduce the number of backlog cases. The reforms aimed at reducing the waiting period for appeal cases from 6 years to 1 year, create an electronic based system for monitoring and tracking judgements and rulings that are overdue, and keeping electronic records of the proceedings. The reforms brought about guidelines on active case management, bail and bond policy and sentencing. In 2012, the judiciary set up the directorate for performance management (DPM), which assisted in capturing the actual number on backlog cases in the country (Judiciary Transformation Framework, 2012). Figure 1 shows the trend on the number of backlog cases from 2010-2023.
Figure 1: Number of cases backlog for years 2010-2023
Source: Authors computations
Figure 1 shows that before the reforms brought about by then them Chief Justice in 2011, the number of cases backlog was over 1 million. After the reforms, the backlog reduced to 426,508 in 2013. There has been an erratic trend in the number of backlog cases over the years. In 2023, the number of these cases was at 276,678, the lowest since 2011. This reduction has been possible due to the judiciary taking up the reforms, which include proper use of financial resources, adoption of technology, physical infrastructure improvement, and change in human resources (State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2023).
Financial resources
The judiciary is expected to receive at least 2.5 per cent of the government outlays to help it finance all the activities but has in averagely received 0.6 per cent for the past 5 years. Below is the presentation of how resources have been distributed to the judiciary from 2018 to 2023.
Figure 2: Financial resource allocation to the judiciary 2017/18 to 2022/23
| Year | Resources Needed (Ksh billion) | Resources Allocated (Ksh billion) | Budget gap (Ksh billion) | Allocation percentage to total government budget |
| 2017/18 | 35.95 | 17.56 | 18.39 | 0.77 |
| 2018/19 | 31.17 | 17.30 | 13.87 | 0.68 |
| 2019/20 | 23.23 | 16.96 | 6.27 | 0.56 |
| 2020/21 | 37.42 | 17.13 | 20.29 | 0.59 |
| 2021/22 | 38.49 | 18.56 | 19.93 | 0.61 |
| 2022/23 | 39.56 | 18.30 | 21.26 | 0.54 |
Source: Authors computations; The Judiciary (2023)
Table 1 shows that the judiciary, apart from years 2018/19 and 2019/2020 in the past 5 years has been receiving less than half of financial resources needed. This has led to delayed justice to involved parties as envisaged in Article 159 of the Kenyan constitution. There is need to reduce time from mention to ruling as one of the 2011 reform proposals, which is only possible if the judiciary is adequately funded.
Technology
The Kenya Vision 2030 advocates for development and deployment of an electronic case management system and an integrated document management system, audio-visual recording and transcription of court proceedings to facilitate expeditious delivery of justice and timely rulings. In the year 2023, a total of 1,500 Microsoft Teams licenses were procured to facilitate the Virtual court hearings, thus enabling litigants to attend to court proceedings without the need of attending in person. Thirty-one video conferencing kits were procured and 38 courtrooms equipped with Court Recording and Transcription Solutions (CRTS) to facilitate virtual and remote hearing of cases. Three secure and reliable data centres were operationalized.
Physical infrastructure
By the year 2022, the number of magistrates courts stood at 127, that of Kadhis courts was at 43 and the mobile courts at 57. The law requires [FM1] every county to have a High Court, which is not the case currently. Five counties, namely Samburu, West Pokot, Wajir, Mandera and Elgeyo Marakwet do not have a High Court.
Human resources
In 2023, there were 542 magistrates and 51 Kadhis serving the magistrate and Kadhis Courts, respectively. This is 45 per cent of the recommended number of 1,200. The total number of both magistrates and judges in the judiciary by 2022 was 1,547. The number of needed magistrates in Kenya was 880 and therefore there is still a deficit (State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2023).
Emerging Issues on Judicial Reforms
Increasing number of cases
The number of cases reported in the Kenyan courts increases each year. The courts are not able to solve all the cases reported within the year and therefore bring about a 7 per cent increase in the pending cases each year. This has stretched service delivery in the judiciary and leading to case backlogs.
Budgetary allocation
The judiciary budget allocation has been increasing over time, but has not been able to meet the judiciary’s financial needs. For instance, in 2022/2023, the financial needs were Ksh 39.56 billion, but the amount allocated was Ksh 18.30 billion, which was less than half. Though the budget has been increasing, it is still below 2.5 per cent of the total budget as required by law. The funding has averaged 0.6 per cent of the total budget each year.
Judiciary productivity
The productivity of the judiciary is pegged on the cases that are decided by each judge. The more judges there are, the more cases the judiciary can tackle. The case clearance rate in the judiciary was 93 per cent in 2023 up from 83 per cent in 2022. This means that of the number of cases registered in all the courts in the country, 93 per cent were resolved, leaving 7 per cent as backlog. The delay in swearing in of the judges had a negative implication on case clearance in different court levels, thereby delaying service delivery to the citizens. With a total number of 1,547 magistrates and judges, 358,062 cases were cleared in 2022. This means that each judicial officer was able to solve an average of 231 cases. Therefore, it is possible that the delay in swearing in of 41 judicial officers could have made the judiciary not solve approximately 9,471 cases.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Constitution of Kenya gives every citizen the right to access to justice (Article 48). To achieve this, there should be prompt determination of all criminal and civil cases that are registered by the citizens. The government has in the past ten years increased financial, human, and physical resources to ensure prompt delivery of justice to the citizens. There has been remarkable adoption of technology in the judicial system, which has made the judicial process simple and faster. However, there are still case backlogs, and the government and judiciary can consider the following to further reduce the case backlogs and offer prompt service delivery to the citizens.
The government could consider increasing the budgetary allocation to the Judiciary. This will ensure that the Judiciary has sufficient funds to adequately finance the intended reforms. The government could also consider hiring more judicial officers, especially magistrates, to ensure that they conform to the required number that will help reduce case backlog. Further, the judiciary could consider extending full automation of their processes in all courts to save on time and improve efficiency. The judiciary could consider encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods in place of the judicial system. This can speed up resolution of cases and lessen the load on the court, particularly in cases that are not as complicated.
Authors: Martin Kabaya and Don Ouma, KIPPRA Young Professionals
