GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 3791

The following activities were undertaken to support the operationalisation of the SCC; (a) Identification and documentation of registry processes and setting of standards for (b) effective case management. (c) Induction training for the adjudicators and staff covering rules and procedures among other training modules. (d) Extensive stakeholders’ engagement on social media platforms, radio show and CUC meeting with the LSK Nairobi Chapter. (e) Submission of decisions to NCLR to enhance accessibility of judicial decisions to the public and legal practitioners. Entrenchment of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Article 159 (2) of the Constitution requires the Judiciary to administer justice in such a manner that entails, inter alia, the use of Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) mechanisms. To entrench ADR within the Judiciary and consequently enhance access to justice, Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) was instituted in the year 2016 as a strategic initiative. In the FY 2020/21, diverse achievements were realized through CAM. A total of 767 matters were settled successfully. From the settled matters, KSh382 million was released back into the economy. This led to the cumulative value of matters with settlement agreements since inception of CAM to stand at KSh11.9 billion at the end of the FY 2020/21 up from at KSh11.5 billon that was recorded at the end of the FY 2019/20. To enhance the capacity of CAM, Mediation Accreditation Committee (MAC) accredited 126 new mediators yielding a cumulative total of 829 mediators at the end of June 2021. The guidelines for virtual mediation were developed and mediators sensitized. Further, Judiciary initiated the development of the Strategic Plan for CAM. Collaborative Engagement with Other Players in the Justice Sector: Article 6 (2) of the Constitution recognizes the need for collaboration and cooperation amongst state agencies in service delivery to the citizens. Further, Article 10 (2), underscores the relevance of good governance as a national value. The Judicial Service Act, 2011 establishes NCAJ to spearhead the inter-agency coordination in the justice sector institutions on service delivery. At the court level, the CUCs that mimic the NCAJ at national level reinforce the spirit of cooperation on expeditious service delivery at the grass-root level. In the FY 2020/21, two NCAJ council meetings were held. The meetings focused on enhancement of access to justice during the COVID- 19 pandemic. Digitization of Judicial Functions: The use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) to reinforce judicial functions is critical for enhancing efficiency of case processing and determination, and the overall access to justice. The key technological initiatives adopted and operationalised by the Judiciary were: e-filing, Court Recording and Transcription Services (CRTS), Case Tracking System (CTS), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), and continued provision of ICT hardware and Internet. During the period under review, e-filing was commenced in all courts within Nairobi. A total of 8,314 accounts had been created on the e-filing portal at the end of the FY 2020/21. The accounts comprised 4,826 individual’s accounts, 3,085 firm’s accounts, 333 organization’s accounts and 70 accounts for state organizations. Through the e- filing portal, 67,299 matters were filed including an additional 16,980 matters under certificate of urgency. A total of KSh939,975,091 comprising court fees, fines and deposits was collected using the portal. 1,359,297 cases had been captured into the CTS. Further, 26 court rooms were installed with the CRTS equipment, internet was upgraded from 1.326 Gigabytes per second (Gbps) to 4.215 Gbps, and an audit of ICT systems was undertaken to enhance robustness and security of the systems deployed in the Judiciary. Recruitment and Retention of Adequate and Quality Workforce: Judges and Judicial Officers are charged with issuing of final judicial decisions in courts. They are assisted by Judicial staff who play the supportive and administrative functions. It therefore follows that, having and maintaining optimal quantity of Judges, Judicial Officers and Staff, is a fundamental ingredient for timely delivery and access to judicial services. In the FY 2020/21, His Excellency Uhuru Kenyatta, the President of the Republic of Kenya appointed seven COA Judges, 18 ELC Judges and nine ELRC Judges bringing the total number of Judges to 20 in the COA, 21 in the ELRC and 51 in the ELC respectively. The total number of judges in the Supreme Court stood at seven. Further, 191 staff were recruited during the review period. Establishment and Construction of Courts: The establishment of new courts and the consequent construction of new court buildings serves as an important access to justice initiative that aims at reducing the distance travelled by litigants, and the associated costs, when accessing courts. This also serves to decongest the existing courts enabling them to serve court users expeditiously. The construction and refurbishment of existing courts further supports the work environment for Judiciary employees. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6176 6176 During the review period, 24 courts were gazetted for establishment. This includes establishment of two High Court stations at Vihiga and Kwale and 22 Magistrates’ Courts stations at: Ol-Kalou, Etago, Madiany, Zombe, Port Victoria, Borabu, Kendu Bay, Wamunyu, Malaba, Matiliku, Usigu, Kasarani, Masinga, Manga, Tinderet, Kenol, Rumuruti, Garbatulla, Kabiyet, Marigat, Kikima and Kaptumo. Further, five sub-registries for the COA were established at Busia, Meru, Garissa, Kakamega and Kisii. Four High Court Sub- registries were established at Isiolo, Kapsabet, Eldama Ravine and Kilgoris. Additionally, three ELC sub-registries were established at Kilgoris, Isiolo and Vihiga while four ELRC sub-registries were established at Kitui, Kisii, Naivasha and Thika. In the Magistrates’ Courts, six mobile Magistrates’ Court stations were established at Nambale, Butula, Mutuati, Endau, Konoin and Sereolipi. In the FY 2020/21 construction of 11 court projects was completed. The completed projects were six High court buildings at Nanyuki, Isiolo, Kakamega, Siaya, Kajiado, Nakuru. Further, four Magistrates’ Courts buildings were completed at Oyugis, Iten, Shanzu and Kahawa. There was an overall improvement of seven per cent in completion of Judicial Performance Improvement Projects from an average of 77 per cent reported at the end of FY 2019/20, to 84 per cent at the end of the FY 2020/21. The completion rate of GOK projects grew by 5.6 per cent from 63.8 per cent that was realized at the end of FY 2019/20 to settle at 69.4 per cent. ACCESS TO JUSTICE: DISPUTE RESOLUTION THROUGH COURTS Map showing total number of courts stations in each county 2.3 Summary of Caseload Statistics for all Courts In this section, detailed statistical information on disputes resolution as a key aspect of access to justice is presented. Data on caseload is collected in courtrooms and registries using Daily Courts Returns Template (DCRT), an excel output that is either generated from the Case Tracking System (CTS), or directly populated by court assistants under the supervision of Judges and Judicial Officers. Upon collection, data is transmitted to the Research and Statistics Division (RSD) of the Directorate of Planning and Organizational Performance (DPOP) for analysis, inferences and reporting. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Caseload statistics presented in this section primarily cover filed, resolved and pending cases. The pending cases are further disaggregated into case backlog. Additionally, select court performance statistics are provided. A new distinct section for the Small Claims Court has been incorporated. Further, a new section on caseload statistics organized by counties has been provided 2.3.1 Filed and Resolved Cases Filed cases (FC) are the cases registered or initiated in a court of law by diverse parties requiring their disputes to be resolved. They therefore depict the demand for court services. Once these cases are filed in courts, Judges and Judicial Officers are obligated to determine them. Their actions therefore yield Resolved Cases (RC), a reflection that justice has been delivered by courts, and therefore accessed by citizens. In the FY 2020/21, 356,997 cases were filed in all courts. These comprised 242,457 criminal cases and 114,540 civil cases. In the same period, 294,837 cases were resolved. Among the resolved cases, 207,255 were criminal in nature while 87,582 were civil cases. The filed cases in the Kenyan Judiciary over time is presented in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: Trends of filed criminal and civil cases, All Courts Figure 2.2: Trends of resolved criminal and civil cases, All Courts 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6178 6178 The overall filed cases increased from 337,510 that were recorded in the previous period to 356,997 during the period under review. The trend of the resolved cases is shown in Figure 2.2. The bulk of the resolved cases over time are criminal in nature. From the FY 2015/16, there has been a general increase of the resolved cases. Nonetheless, there was a drop in the FY 2019/20, which was attributed to the adverse effects of COVID- 19 pandemic. This was followed by a marginal increase in the FY 2020/21, an indication of slight recovery from the initial pandemic shock. Table 2.1 presents filed and resolved cases by court and case type during the period under review. Table 2.1: Criminal and Civil Cases Filed and Resolved, FY 2020/21 Court Type Filed cases FY 2020/21 Resolved cases FY 2020/21 CR CC ALL CR CC ALL Supreme Court N/A 47 47 N/A 62 62 Court of Appeal 355 2,150 2,505 271 969 1,240 High Court 8,784 17,440 26,224 6,522 17,692 24,214 ELRC N/A 2,918 2,918 N/A 2,434 2,434 ELC N/A 4,856 4,856 N/A 5,748 5,748 Magistrates’ Courts 233,318 77,152 310,470 200,462 52,810 253,272 Kadhis’ Courts N/A 8,954 8,954 N/A 7,230 7,230 Small Claims Court N/A 1,023 1,023 N/A 637 637 All Courts 242,457 114,540 356,997 207,255 87,582 294,837 From Table 2.1, the highest number of filed and resolved cases were in the Magistrates’ Courts totalling 310,470 and 253,272 cases respectively. Further, the least filed and resolved cases were recorded in the Supreme Court at 47 and 62 respectively. The filed and resolved criminal matters were more than the civil matters in courts that handle both criminal and civil cases. 2.3.2 Pending Cases Ordinarily, not all cases are resolved at the end of a given period. The unresolved cases are referred to as pending cases. By the end of the FY 2020/21, there were 649,112 pending cases in the Judiciary comprising 293,605 criminal cases and 355,507 civil cases. Figure 2.3 illustrates the trend of pending cases over time by broad case type. Figure 2.3: Trends of Pending Criminal and Civil Cases, All Courts As depicted in Figure 2.3, the overall pending cases in the Judiciary has been rising over time. This growth has on average, revolved between five and ten per cent over time. While criminal cases have been on a gradual rise, civil cases steadily but mildly declined over time. Statistics on pending cases by court and case type are elaborated in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Pending cases by Court and Case Type, FY 2019/20 & FY 2020/21 Court Type Pending cases, 30th June 2020 Pending cases, 30th June 2021 % change in pendency CR CC ALL CR CC ALL Supreme Court N/A 89 89 N/A 74 74 -17% Court of Appeal 2,069 5,529 7,598 2,153 6,637 8,790 16% High Court 22,458 66,957 89,415 24,307 66,594 90,901 2% ELRC N/A 12,907 12,907 N/A 14,040 14,040 9% ELC N/A 15,892 15,892 N/A 14,405 14,405 -9% Magistrates’ Courts 266,599 217,265 483,864 267,145 245,309 512,454 6% Kadhis’ Courts N/A 7,817 7,817 N/A 8,062 8,062 3% Small Claims Court N/A N/A N/A N/A 386 386 N/A All Courts 291,126 326,456 617,582 293,605 355,507 649,112 5% 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Table 2.2 shows that pending cases rose by five per cent from 617,582 cases at the end of FY 2019/20 to 649,112 cases at the end of FY 2020/21. The bulk of pending cases were in Magistrates’ Courts at 512,454 cases, followed by High Court with 90,901 cases. The least pending cases were recorded at Supreme Court with 74 cases. The percentage distribution of pending cases by court type is presented in Figure 2.4. Figure 2.4: Percentage Pending Cases by Court Type Figure 2.4 shows that the highest percentage of pending cases was in the Magistrates’ Courts at 78.95 per cent followed by High Court at 14 per cent. The least pendency was in the Supreme Court at 0.01 per cent. 2.3.3 Case Backlog Article 159 (2) (b) of the Constitution envisages that justice shall be rendered expeditiously. Delayed justice is manifested through accumulation of unresolved cases that surpasses the minimum set timeline for their conclusion. In the Kenyan Judiciary, the desirable timeline for determination of most case types is pegged at a maximum of 1 year from their date of filing. Consequently, any case that has surpassed 1 year from the date of filing is classified as backlog. At the end of the FY 2020/21, the case backlog in all courts stood at 375,671 cases. The percentage distribution of case backlog by court type is presented in Figure 2.5. Figure 2.5: Percentage distribution of case backlog by court type Out of the 375,671 cases, the highest proportion was in the Magistrates’ Courts at 73 per cent followed by High Court at 18 per cent. The lowest case backlog was recorded in the Supreme Court and Small Claims Court at 0.012 and 0.003 per cent respectively. The percentage distribution of case backlog by age is shown in Figure 2.6. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6180 6180 Figure 2.6: Percentage Case Backlog by Age Out of the total case backlog, 60 per cent was aged between 1 and 3 years (225,422 cases), 31 per cent (115,601 cases) between 3 and 5 years and 9 per cent above 5 years (34,648 cases). Table 2.3 gives trend of case backlog by type of court. Table 2.3: Trend on case backlog, FYs 2019/20 & 2020/21 Court Type Case backlog, 30 th June 2020 Case backlog by Age, 30 th June 2021 Change in backlog 1-3 years 3-5 years 5 years and above All Ages Supreme Court 37 35 9 2 46 24% Court of Appeal 4,982 3,675 2,449 171 6,295 26% High Court 69,184 39,099 22,589 7,735 69,423 0% ELRC 10,928 7,008 3,587 625 11,220 3% ELC 13,630 4,736 3,706 3,075 11,517 -16% Magistrates’ Courts 259,519 168,577 82,967 23,040 274,584 6% Kadhis’ Courts 1,067 2,282 291 0 2,573 141% Small Claims Court 0 10 3 0 13 N/A All Courts 359,347 225,422 115,601 34,648 375,671 5% The overall case backlog increased by 5 per cent. This is ascribed to the adverse effects of the pandemic which slowed down normal court business. The backlog increased for all courts except in the ELC which reduced its backlog by 16 per cent. The Supreme Court had two cases of 5 years and above in comparison to the single case that was recorded at the end of previous period. This was occasioned by recusal of Judges that led to lack of quorum to finalize the cases in time. Although Table 2.3 shows the existence of case backlog in SCC of 13 cases despite the court having commenced its operation in April 2021, the number depicts that old cases from other courts were transferred to the SCC. 2.3.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog At the onset of SJT in January 2017, there were 170,186 cases aged 5 years and above. These were the cases that the Judiciary set to clear. The progress made in clearing of these cases by the end June 2021 is illustrated in Figure 2.7. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 2.7: Reduction of case backlog aged 5 years and above under SJT From the 170,186 backlog cases that were above five years in age at the beginning of SJT period, only 34,648 cases remained at the end of the period under reference. This marked a reduction of 80 per cent. This is consistent with a generally rising CCR illustrated in the Figure 2.7. The details on reduction of case backlog above 5 years for each court are highlighted in Table 2.4. Table 2.4: SJT implementation status on case backlog reduction by court, 30th June 2021 Court Type SJT target on reduc- tion of case backlog older than 5 years, 1st Jan. 2017 Resolved cases older than 5 years between 1st Jan. 2017 and 30 th June 2021 Case backlog older than 5 years, 30 th June 2021 % change in case backlog older than 5 years between 1st Jan. 2017 and th June 2021 Supreme Court 0 0 2 200% Court of Appeal 648 1,197 171 -74% High Court 58,487 74,078 7,735 -87% ELRC 771 3,537 625 -19% ELC 4,146 12,671 3,075 -26% Magistrates’ Courts 106,134 125,535 23,040 -78% Kadhis’ Courts 0 0 0 0% Small Claims Court - 0 0 - All Courts 170,186 217,018 34,648 -80% 2.4 Supreme Court The Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine matters relating to the election of the President, and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the COA. The court also gives advisory opinions upon filing of the requests. 2.4.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Supreme Court In the FY 2020/21, 47 cases were filed in the Supreme Court while 62 were resolved. Figure 2.8 illustrates the nature of filed and resolved cases in the Supreme Court. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6182 6182 Figure 2.8: Filed and resolved cases in the Supreme Court by case type, FY 2020/21 Applications were the most filed and resolved cases followed by petitions. Advisory opinions were the least filed and resolved cases. The number of cases filed and resolved in the Supreme Court in the FY 2020/21 are detailed in Table 2.5. Table 2.5: Filed and resolved cases in the Supreme Court by type, FY 2020/21 Filed Cases Resolved Cases Month - Year Petitions Applica- tions Advisory Opinions All Petitions Applica- tions Advisory Opinions All Jul-2020 3 4 0 7 0 3 0 3 Aug-2020 3 5 0 8 5 2 2 9 Sep-2020 1 4 0 5 9 13 0 22 Oct-2020 1 3 0 4 1 2 0 3 Nov-2020 0 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 Dec-2020 3 2 1 6 3 2 0 5 Jan-2021 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 Feb-2021 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 Mar-2021 1 2 0 3 3 12 3 18 Apr-2021 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 May-2021 0 0 0 0 Jun-2021 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 Whole FY 17 27 3 47 22 35 5 62 2.4.2 Pending Cases in the Supreme Court By the end of the FY 2020/21, their were 74 cases pending in the Supreme Court. The trend of pending cases in the Supreme Court is presented in Figure 2.9. Figure 2.9: Trend of pending Cases, Supreme Court 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE From FY 2014/15, pending cases in the Supreme Court took an upward growth reaching a high of 93 cases in the FY 2018/19. This was followed by a decline to 89 cases in the FY 2019/20 and a further decline to 74 cases in 2020/21 FY. The types of pending cases over time in the Supreme Court are summarized in Table 2.6. Table 2.6: Pending cases by type in the Supreme Court Case Type FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 Petitions 42 44 40 52 53 54 53 Applications 14 18 29 31 33 28 16 Advisory opinions 4 6 4 3 7 7 5 All case types 60 68 73 86 93 89 74 Petitions have comprised the most pending cases over time followed by applications. The advisory opinions have been the least pending cases over time. 2.4.3 Case Backlog in Supreme Court Out of the 46 pending cases in the Supreme Court, 35 cases were backlog. The trend of case backlog in Supreme Court is elaborated in Table 2.7. Table 2.7: Trend in case backlog by age, Supreme Court Age category of case backlog 30th June 2020 30 th June 2021 Change in Backlog 1 – 3 Years 29 35 21% 3 – 5 Years 7 9 29% Over 5 Years 1 2 100% All Backlog 37 46 24% The case backlog aged between 1 and 3 years was 35 cases, representing 21 per cent increase in comparison to the number that was recorded at the end of the previous period. The case backlog aged between 3 and 5 years was nine cases. This was a 29 per cent increase from seven cases that were recorded at the end of the previous period. 2.4.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in Supreme Court At the onset of SJT period in January 2017, the Supreme Court had no cases aged 5 years and above. By the end of the review period, two cases were aged 5 years and above. This was attributed to lack of quorum to handle the two cases after some judges recused themselves. The cases were to be finalized in the FY 2021/22 after the court was fully constituted towards the end of the period under review. 2.5 Court of Appeal The COA had four stations namely Kisumu, Mombasa, Nairobi and Nyeri during the period under review. However, Kisumu and Nyeri COA stations did not operate due to an insufficient number of Judges in the Court. Their matters were handled at Nairobi COA. 2.5.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in Court of Appeal During the period under review, 2,505 cases were filed in the COA which comprised 355 criminal and 2,150 civil cases. This was a 4 per cent reduction from the 2,620 cases that were filed in the previous period. Over the same period, 1,240 cases, comprising 271 criminal and 969 civil cases were resolved. This was in comparison to 1,074 cases that were resolved in the previous period. The change over time of filed cases in COA is illustrated in Figure 2.9. Figure 2.10: Trend in filed cases by type, COA Figure 2.9 shows that the cases filed in COA have been increasing over time. However, the growth slowed down in the 2019/20 and 2020/21 FYs when the COVID- 19 pandemic set-in. The filed cases by broad case type for all COA stations for the FY 2020/21 are given in Table 2.8. Table 2.8: Filed cases by type and COA station, FY 2020/21 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6184 6184 Court of Appeal Criminal Appeals Criminal Applications All Criminal Cases Civil Appeals Civil Applications All Civil Cases All Cases Kisumu 122 13 224 192 551 Mombasa 14 0 14 111 101 212 226 Nairobi 101 2 103 702 546 1,248 1,351 Nyeri 99 4 103 150 124 274 377 All Courts 336 19 355 1,187 963 2,150 2,505 Appeal cases were more than the applications for both criminal and civil cases that were filed. The trend of resolved cases in the COA is shown in Figure 2.11. Figure 2.11: Trend in resolved cases by type, COA Resolved cases increased between FY 2015/16 and 2018/19. This was followed by a reduction in the subsequent year due to adverse effects of the pandemic, followed by a slight increase to 1,240 cases in the FY 2020/21. Table 2.9 provides statistics on the type of cases that were resolved in the COA. Table 2.9: Resolved cases by type and COA station, FY 2020/21 Court of Appeal Criminal Appeals Criminal Applications All Criminal Cases Civil Appeals Civil Applications All Civil Cases All Cases Kisumu 43 0 43 52 3 55 98 Mombasa 6 0 6 24 24 48 54 Nairobi 119 2 121 308 466 774 895 Nyeri 101 0 101 11 81 92 193 All courts 269 2 271 395 574 969 1,240 For both resolved criminal and civil cases, appeal cases were more than the applications. The COA had average time to disposition of 860 days from filing to conclusion of the cases. Specifically, Kisumu registered 1,169 days, Mombasa 679 days, Nyeri 1,127 days while Nairobi registered 663 days. 2.5.2 Pending Cases in Court of Appeal At the end of the FY 2020/21, 8,790 cases comprising 2,153 criminal and 6,637 civil cases, were pending in the COA. The trend of pending cases over time in COA is presented in Figure 2.12. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 2.12: Trend in pending cases by type, COA From the FY 2014/15, the pending criminal and civil cases has been steadily increasing. The increase was less steep between the FY 2014/15 to 2016/17, before becoming relatively steeper up to the end of FY 2020/21. This is attributed to the continued decline in the number of judges in the court over time. Nonetheless, the COA has managed to avoid a huge increase of pending criminal cases as depicted by a flatter curve for criminal cases. Figure 2.13 gives the percentage distribution of pending cases by COA stations at the end of the period under review. Figure 2.13: Percentage pending cases in COA At the end of the FY 2020/21, Nairobi COA recorded the highest percentage of pending cases at 34 per cent, followed by Kisumu and Nyeri at 30 per cent and 27 per cent respectively. The least percentage of pending cases was recorded in Mombasa at 7 per cent. The pending cases by case type and COA station is shown in Table 2.10. Table 2.10: Pending cases by type and COA station, 30th June 2021 Court of Appeal Criminal Appeals Criminal Applications All Criminal Cases Civil Appeals Civil Applications All Civil Cases All Cases Kisumu 1,290 84 1374 866 434 1300 2674 Mombasa 9 101 110 209 422 631 741 Nairobi 44 85 129 2150 731 2881 3010 Nyeri 531 9 540 1044 781 1825 2365 All Courts 1,874 279 2,153 4,269 2,368 6,637 8,790 A total of 1,874 criminal appeals and 4,269 civil appeals were pending in all COA stations. Further, 279 criminal applications and 2,368 civil applications remained unresolved at the end of June 2021. This pointed to quite a sizeable workload for the court at the beginning of the FY 2021/22. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6186 6186 2.5.3 Case backlog in Court of Appeal Out of the 8,790 pending cases in the COA, 6,295 cases had surpassed the set timeline of resolution within 360 days from the date of filing and consequently classified as backlog. Figure 2.14 gives the percentage case backlog by age in the COA. Figure 2.14: Case backlog by age in COA The highest percentage of case backlog in the COA were cases aged 1-3 years at 58 per cent. The cases aged 3-5 years stood at 39 per cent while those aged above 5 years constituted 3 per cent. The distribution of case backlog by age for the COA is highlighted in Table 2.11. Table 2.11: Case backlog by age and COA station, 30th June 2021 Court of Appeal Backlog, 30 th June 2020 Backlog, 30 th June, 2021 All 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years Over 5 years All Case Backlog Kisumu 1,373 1,277 844 4 2,125 Mombasa 333 376 131 11 518 Nairobi 1,694 946 649 65 1,660 Nyeri 1,582 1,076 825 91 1,992 All Courts 4,982 3,675 2,449 171 6,295 The Kisumu COA station had the highest case backlog at 2,125 cases up from 1,373 cases that were recorded at the end of the previous period. The least backlog was recorded in Mombasa COA at 518 cases up from 333 cases that were recorded at the end of the previous period. The percentage distribution of case backlog in COA is summarized in Figure 2.15. Figure 2.15: Percentage distribution of case backlog in COA stations, 30th June 2021 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE The highest case backlog at the end of the review period was in Kisumu COA which stood at 34 per cent. This was followed by Nyeri COA at 32 per cent while the least was eight per cent at Malindi COA. 2.5.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in COA At the onset of SJT in January 2017, the COA had 648 cases aged five years and above. At the end of June 2021, only 171 cases remained unresolved marking a 74 per cent reduction. Information for each of the COA station is elaborated in Table 2.12. Table 2.12: SJT Implementation status on reduction of case backlog in COA Court of Appeal SJT target on reduction of case backlog older than 5 years, 1st Jan Resolved backlog cases older than 5 years between 1st Jan 2017 and 30 th June, 2021 Case backlog older than 5 years, th June, 2021 Kisumu 11 158 4 Malindi 12 47 11 Nairobi 619 824 65 Nyeri 6 168 91 All stations 648 1,197 171 From Table 2.12, the highest reduction was in the Nairobi COA at 89 per cent, followed by Kisumu at 64 per cent. Moreover, a total of 1,197 cases aged 5 years and above were cleared between January 2017 and June 2021. This was occasioned by resolution of cases that entered into the category of above 5 years during the SJT period. 2.6 High Court During the period under review, there were 40 High Court Stations. However, the presentation in this report captures caseload statistics for Milimani High Court distinctly by the existing seven divisions and not as a single station. 2.6.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in High Court A total of 26,224 cases were filed in High Court stations during the FY 2020/21 which included 8,784 criminal cases and 17,440 civil cases. In the same period, 24,214 cases were resolved. The resolved cases comprised 6,522 criminal cases and 17,692 civil cases. The disaggregation of the filed and resolved cases by case type is presented in Figures 2.16 & 2.17. Filed Criminal Cases Resolved Criminal Cases Figure 2.16: Distribution of filed and resolved criminal cases in High Court, FY 2020/21 Criminal revisions were the most filed cases at 45 per cent while murder cases were the least at 15 per cent. Regarding the resolved cases, criminal revisions were the highest at 42 per cent while the least were murder cases at 13 per cent. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6188 6188 Filed Civil Cases Resolved Civil Cases Figure 2.17: Distribution of filed and resolved civil cases in High Court, FY 2020/21 The highest proportion of filed civil cases at 19.9 per cent were ordinary civil matters followed by probate and administration cases at 19.2 per cent. The least filed cases were family miscellaneous cases at 0.4 per cent. Probate and administration cases were the highest resolved cases at 23.5 per cent while family appeals were the least at 0.2 per cent. The breakdown is as provided in Table 2.13. Table 2.13: Filed and resolved cases by type in the High Court, FY 2020/21 Filed Resolved High Court Station Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All Bomet 97 74 171 30 39 69 Bungoma 329 231 560 141 184 325 Busia 154 286 440 78 214 292 Chuka 137 67 204 115 103 218 Eldoret 207 163 370 315 471 786 Embu 217 180 397 256 328 584 Garissa 128 64 192 127 27 154 Garsen 110 23 133 93 15 108 Homa Bay 190 176 366 189 400 589 Kabarnet 131 48 179 84 66 150 Kajiado 110 229 339 103 172 275 Kakamega 174 451 625 94 223 317 Kapenguria 76 16 92 47 12 59 Kericho 177 216 393 108 104 212 Kerugoya 161 146 307 188 179 367 Kiambu 507 771 1,278 219 501 720 Kisii 66 131 197 135 249 384 Kisumu 214 575 789 155 775 930 Kitale 587 254 841 298 116 414 Kitui 197 176 373 208 155 363 Lodwar 7 8 15 11 1 12 Machakos 363 610 973 222 735 957 Makueni 261 180 441 232 78 310 Malindi 278 362 640 174 260 434 Marsabit 31 88 119 20 9 29 Meru 501 356 857 493 583 1,076 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Filed Resolved High Court Station Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All Migori 113 188 301 60 209 269 Milimani Anti-corr. Div. 0 62 62 9 66 75 Milimani Civil Div. 0 1,979 1,979 0 1,869 1,869 Milimani C. & Tax Div. 0 3,251 3,251 0 4,169 4,169 Milimani Const. Div. 0 454 454 0 407 407 Milimani Criminal Div. 918 0 918 397 0 397 Milimani Family Div. 0 2,621 2,621 0 1,556 1,556 Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 0 342 342 0 276 276 Mombasa 221 836 1,057 136 883 1,019 Muranga 276 193 469 213 112 325 Naivasha 338 147 485 102 307 409 Nakuru 248 555 803 284 925 1,209 Nanyuki 83 49 132 54 37 91 Narok 176 52 228 211 75 286 Nyamira 93 113 206 90 136 226 Nyandarua 12 13 25 20 24 44 Nyeri 236 288 524 368 421 789 Siaya 255 153 408 308 139 447 Vihiga 131 191 322 18 38 56 Voi 274 72 346 117 44 161 All courts 8,784 17,440 26,224 6,522 17,692 24,214 The highest number of cases were filed at Milimani Commercial and Tax Division with 3,251 cases, followed by Milimani Family Division at 2,621 and Milimani Civil Division at 1,979 cases respectively. The least cases were filed at Lodwar with 15 cases. This was followed by Nyandarua at 25 and Milimani Anti-Corruption Division where 62 cases were filed respectively. Milimani Commercial and Tax Division had the highest number of resolved cases at 4,169 cases followed by Milimani Civil Division with 1,869 cases and Milimani Family Division with 1,556 cases. The filed and resolved cases by specific case types for all the High Court stations are detailed in the appendices. 2.6.2 Pending Cases in the High Court At the end of the FY 2020/21, a total of 90,901 cases were pending in the High Court. The cases comprised 24,307 criminal cases and 66,594 civil cases. This was an increase from the 22,458 criminal cases and a decline from 66,957 civil cases that were recorded at the end of the previous period. The trend of pending cases is shown in Figure 2.18. Figure 2.18: Trend of Pending Cases by Type in High Court The overall pending cases in the High Court has been declining over time. The declining trend is also manifested in civil cases, an indication that there have been deliberate efforts targeting the reduction of civil matters that had predominantly over-accumulated in the court. However, there has been minimal changes in criminal cases minimal change. This implies that the Court has on average managed to react to the incoming demand for criminal matters by supplying an almost equivalent resolution rate. The percentage distribution of pending cases by type is shown in Figure 2.19. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6190 6190 Pending Criminal Cases Figure 2.19: Percentage Distribution of Pending Cases in High Court Criminal revisions constituted the highest pending criminal cases at 35 per cent, followed by criminal applications at 23 per cent. Criminal appeals were the least pending at 20 per cent. Probate and administration cases were the highest pending civil cases at 29.7 per cent followed by civil applications at 20.2 per cent. The pending cases by case type for the High Court at the end of FY 2020/21 are presented in Table 2.14. Table 2.14: Pending Cases by Type in High Court, FY 2019/20 & 2020/21 Pending June 2020 Pending June 2021 High Court Station Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All Bomet 243 361 604 310 396 706 Bungoma 590 2,312 2,902 778 2,359 3,137 Busia 106 2,017 2,123 182 2,089 2,271 Chuka 193 489 682 215 473 688 Eldoret 1,128 1,385 2,513 1,020 1,087 2,107 Embu 573 2,427 3,000 534 2,279 2,813 Garissa 449 220 669 450 257 707 Garsen 96 74 170 113 82 195 Homa Bay 294 663 957 299 479 778 Kabarnet 338 166 504 385 150 535 Kajiado 269 229 498 284 286 570 Kakamega 667 2,318 2,985 747 2,546 3,293 Kapenguria 114 31 145 143 37 180 Kericho 565 1,028 1,593 634 1,140 1,774 Kerugoya 301 2,128 2,429 282 2,111 2,393 Kiambu 1,262 1,199 2,461 1,550 1,469 3,019 Kisii 259 270 529 190 160 350 Kisumu 601 917 1,518 660 887 1,547 Kitale 1,773 1,030 2,803 2,062 1,168 3,230 Kitui 392 234 626 381 259 640 Lodwar 83 27 110 79 34 113 Machakos 1,021 2,335 3,356 1,162 2,210 3,372 Makueni 195 283 478 232 385 617 Malindi 421 743 1,164 525 847 1,372 Pending Civil Cases 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Pending June 2020 Pending June 2021 High Court Station Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All Marsabit 14 8 22 29 87 116 Meru 1,549 2,928 4,477 1,557 2,701 4,258 Migori 191 467 658 244 446 690 Milimani Anti-corr. Div. 74 116 190 65 142 207 Milimani Civil Div. 0 6,867 6,867 0 6,985 6,985 Milimani C. & Tax Div. 0 7,497 7,497 0 6,579 6,579 Milimani Const. Div. 0 1,016 1,016 0 643 643 Milimani Criminal Div. 1,628 0 1,628 2,149 0 2,149 Milimani Family Div. 0 4,519 4,519 0 5,584 5,584 Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 0 1,153 1,153 0 1,219 1,219 Mombasa 2,235 7,392 9,627 2,320 7,345 9,665 Muranga 1,327 2,644 3,971 1,390 2,725 4,115 Naivasha 172 469 641 408 315 723 Nakuru 821 5,723 6,544 817 5,353 6,170 Nanyuki 681 126 807 710 138 848 Narok 162 266 428 127 243 370 Nyamira 41 97 138 44 172 216 Nyandarua 200 230 430 192 231 423 Nyeri 660 2,183 2,843 528 2,054 2,582 Siaya 587 199 786 75 88 163 Vihiga 0 0 0 95 155 250 Voi 183 171 354 340 199 539 All courts 22,458 66,957 89,415 24,307 66,594 90,901 At the end of the FY 2020/21, the highest number of pending criminal cases were at Mombasa High Court with 2,320 cases, followed by Milimani Criminal Division with 2,149 and Kitale High Court with 2,062 cases respectively. Mombasa High Court had the highest number of pending civil cases at 7,345 followed by Milimani Civil Division at 6,985 and Milimani Commercial & Tax Division 6,579 cases respectively. Figure 2.20 highlights the cases that were pending in each High Court Station. Figure 2.20: Pending Cases by High Court as at 30th June, 2021 Overall, Mombasa High Court had the highest pending cases with 9,665 cases while Lodwar had the least pending cases at 113 cases. The pending cases by specific case types for each High Court station are provided in the appendices. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6192 6192 2.6.3 Case Backlog in High Court At the end of the FY 2020/21, 69,423 cases out of the 90,901 pending cases were backlog. The case backlog by age for the high court is illustrated in Figure 2.21. Figure 2.21: Case backlog in High Court The highest percentage of backlog at 56 per cent was for cases aged between 1 and 3 years followed by Backlog cases aged 3-5 years at 33 per cent. There were 7,735 backlog cases aged 5 years and above translating to 11 per cent. The case backlog for each of the High Court station is detailed in Table 2.15. Table 2.15: Case backlog by age in High Court High Court Station Backlog 1-3 years Backlog 3-5 years Backlog Over 5 years All Backlog Bomet 289 246 2 537 Bungoma 1,185 935 459 2,579 Busia 645 645 622 1,912 Chuka 432 39 14 485 Eldoret 989 698 167 1,854 Embu 1,352 1,069 63 2,484 Garissa 349 151 53 553 Garsen 41 16 6 63 Homa Bay 384 189 12 585 Kabarnet 216 142 0 358 Kajiado 225 5 3 233 Kakamega 931 784 954 2,669 Kapenguria 53 36 1 90 Kericho 716 453 214 1,383 Kerugoya 765 903 420 2,088 Kiambu 812 924 9 1,745 Kisii 246 19 31 296 Kisumu 631 155 502 1,288 Kitale 1,476 900 16 2,392 Kitui 173 140 14 327 Lodwar 66 33 0 99 Machakos 1,797 793 158 2,748 Makueni 130 64 0 194 Malindi 415 279 40 734 Marsabit 15 1 1 17 Meru 2,159 1,246 127 3,532 Migori 73 68 295 436 Milimani Anti-corr. Div. 92 55 0 147 Milimani Civil Div. 2,939 1,714 355 5,008 Milimani C. & Tax Di. 2,387 1,617 1,205 5,209 Milimani Const. DiV 256 89 37 382 Milimani Criminal Div. 757 465 11 1,233 Milimani Family Div. 1,633 820 512 2,965 Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 579 284 16 879 Mombasa 6,402 1,915 293 8,610 Murang’a 1,607 1,467 574 3,648 Naivasha 149 72 19 240 Nakuru 3,391 1,692 285 5,368 Nanyuki 407 298 13 718 Narok 91 50 3 144 Nyamira 139 13 1 153 Nyandarua 179 115 106 400 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE High Court Station Backlog 1-3 years Backlog 3-5 years Backlog Over 5 years All Backlog Nyeri 1,237 938 28 2,203 Siaya 42 2 0 44 Vihiga 0 0 93 93 Voi 247 50 1 298 All courts 39,099 22,589 7,735 69,423 The Mombasa High Court had the highest case backlog with 8,610 cases followed by Nakuru with 5,368, and Milimani Commercial & Tax Division at 5,209. The least case backlog was recorded at Marsabit High Court with 17 Cases. 2.6.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in High Court The backlog aged 5 years and above at the beginning of the SJT period in January 2017 stood at 58,487 cases for the High Court. These are the cases that were targeted to be cleared by the end of the SJT period. By June 2021, the case backlog aged 5 years and above in all the High Court stations stood at 7,735 cases, a reduction of 87 per cent. Nonetheless, and owing to new cases entering the age category of 5 years and above, the High Court has resolved 74,078 cases aged 5 years and above since January 2017. The achievements are provided in Table 2.16. Table 2.16: SJT implementation status on reduction of case backlog in High Court High Court Station Case backlog of over 5 years, January 2017 Case backlog of over 5 years, 30 th June, 2021 Resolved cases of over 5 years between January 2017 to June 2021 Bomet 2 2 6 Bungoma 1,664 459 1,243 Busia 728 622 373 Chuka 0 14 140 Eldoret 1,404 167 2,184 Embu 1,295 63 771 Garissa 109 53 164 Garsen 6 6 28 Homa Bay 345 12 248 Kabarnet 0 0 0 Kajiado 7 3 16 Kakamega 1,739 954 832 Kapenguria 1 1 2 Kericho 1,232 214 1,802 Kerugoya 355 420 459 Kiambu 0 9 4 Kisii 634 31 2,108 Kisumu 1,193 502 2,754 Kitale 1,381 16 1,983 Kitui 0 14 152 Lodwar 0 0 0 Machakos 5,480 158 3,774 Makueni 0 0 48 Malindi 160 40 455 Marsabit 0 1 1 Meru 2,415 127 4,313 Migori 304 295 142 Milimani Anti-corr. Div. 0 0 7 Milimani Civil Div. 9,071 355 6,657 Milimani C. & Tax Div. 2,747 1,205 4,882 Milimani Const. DiV 28 37 339 Milimani Criminal Div. 867 11 892 Milimani Family Div. 15,593 512 19,982 Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 119 16 269 Mombasa 2,480 293 10,372 Muranga 161 574 500 Naivasha 0 19 44 Nakuru 3,631 285 4,165 Nanyuki 11 13 5 Narok 0 3 6 Nyamira 17 1 7 Nyandarua 0 106 3 Nyeri 3,307 28 1,894 Siaya 0 0 5 Vihiga 0 93 41 Voi 1 1 6 All courts 58,487 7,735 74,078 2.7 Employment and Labour Relations Court There were seven ELRC stations during the review period based in Nairobi, Kericho, Kisumu, Mombasa, Nakuru, Eldoret and Nyeri. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6194 6194 2.7.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in ELRC In the FY 2020/21, 2,918 cases were filed in the ELRC. This was a 45 per cent increase from 2,015 cases that were registered in the FY 2019/20. Over the same period, the resolved cases were 2,434 cases down from 3,568 cases that were resolved in the FY 2019/20. Figure 2.22 shows the trend of filed and resolved cases in ELRC. Figure 2.22: Trend of filed and resolved cases, ELRC The filed cases rose from 3,436 in FY 2014/15 to 6,159 cases in FY 2015/16. This was followed by a decline leading to 2,672 cases in the FY 2018/19. Thereafter there was a gradual decline to 2,015 cases in FY 2019/20 followed by a rise to 2,918 in FY 2020/21. The trend of resolved cases declined gently rose between the FY 2014/15 up to the FY 2018/19. Thereafter, the number of resolved cases declined to 3,568 cases in 2019/20 and further to 2,434 in FY 2020/21, a decline attributed to the adverse effect of the pandemic. Detailed statistics on filed and resolved cases for the ELRC over time are provided in Table 2.17. Table 2.17: Trends of filed and resolved cases in ELRC Station 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 ELRC Station FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC Eldoret - - - - - - 29 122 30 82 Kericho 116 105 124 180 96 32 28 25 34 49 Kisumu 499 179 581 227 360 367 277 438 333 580 Mombasa 1,045 646 861 455 155 397 177 469 274 438 Nairobi 3,631 1,980 3,114 2,324 1,801 2,593 1,314 1,527 1,935 986 Nakuru 391 285 360 182 169 389 87 590 132 166 Nyeri 400 473 605 293 91 450 103 397 180 133 All ELRC stations 6,082 3,668 5,645 3,661 2,672 4,228 2,015 3,568 2,918 2,434 During the period under reference, Nairobi ELRC had the highest filed cases at 1,935, followed by Kisumu with 333 and Mombasa with 274 cases. Regarding the resolved cases, Nairobi was leading at 986 followed by Kisumu with 580 cases. The types of disputes that were handled by the court in the FY 2020/21 are illustrated in Figure 2.23. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Filed cases, ELRC Resolved cases, ELRC Figure 2.23: Percentage distribution of filed & resolved cases in ELRC, FY 2020/21 In regard to the filed cases, cause disputes remained the bulk of cases at 56.3 per cent followed by petitions at 15.2 percent. Majority of the resolved cases were cause disputes at 75.9 per cent followed by petitions at 12.3 per cent and miscellaneous application at 5.3 per cent respectively. Table 2.18 elucidates the types of cases that were filed in each of the ELRC station. Table 2.18: Filed cases by type in ELRC, FY 2020/21 ELRC Station CBAs Cause Disputes ELRC Petitions ELRC Misc. ELRC Appeals ELRC Reviews All filed cases Eldoret 0 13 10 7 0 0 30 Kericho 0 14 11 8 0 1 34 Kisumu 0 123 94 66 31 19 333 Mombasa 0 143 14 50 61 6 274 Nairobi 130 1,177 249 217 118 44 1,935 Nakuru 0 67 29 24 5 7 132 Nyeri 0 105 36 22 12 5 180 All Courts 130 1,642 443 394 227 82 2,918 Cause disputes were the most filed cases at 1,672 followed by petitions at 443. The reviews were the least filed cases at 82. Table 2.19 elaborates the types of cases that were resolved in ELRC. Table 2.19: Resolved cases by type in ELRC, FY 2020/21 ELRC Station CBAs Cause Disputes ELRC Petitions ELRC Misc. ELRC Appeals ELRC Reviews All resolved cases Eldoret 0 68 8 2 2 2 82 Kericho 0 35 10 3 1 0 49 Kisumu 0 365 95 41 56 23 580 Mombasa 0 373 10 31 23 1 438 Nairobi 2 783 144 25 17 15 986 Nakuru 0 139 11 8 7 1 166 Nyeri 1 85 21 20 1 5 133 All Courts 3 1,848 299 130 107 47 2,434 Most of the resolved cases were at Nairobi ELRC with 986 cases followed by Kisumu with 580 cases. Kericho had the least resolutions at 49 cases. 2.7.2 Pending Cases in ELRC At the end of the FY 2020/21, there were 14,040 pending cases in ELRC. This signified an increase from the 12,907 cases that were pending at the end of the FY 2019/20. Over time, the pending cases in ELRC has not drastically changed as shown in Figure 2.24. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6196 6196 Figure 2.24: Trend of pending cases, ELRC From the FY 2015/16, the pending cases in ELRC rose to 15,733 cases at the end of FY 2017/18. This was followed by a slight decline to 13,788 cases in FY 2018/19 and a further decline to 12,907 cases at the end of FY 2019/20. They settled at 14,040 cases in FY 2020/21. This is attributed to challenges of accessing courts that were posed by COVID-19 pandemic. The percentage distribution of pending cases by type is shown in Figure 2.25. Figure 2.25: Distribution of pending cases by case type in ELRC Figure 2.25 shows that majority of the pending cases were cause disputes at 77 per cent, followed by miscellaneous application at 7 per cent. The least pending cases were judicial review which stood at one per cent. The change over time of pending cases in the ELRC is elaborated in Table 2.20. Table 2.20: Trend of pending cases in ELRC ELRC Station FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY2019/20 FY2020/21 Eldoret - - 0 103 698 Kericho 310 254 318 321 306 Kisumu 1,182 1,544 1,132 971 724 Mombasa 1,817 2,233 1,991 1,699 1,535 Nairobi 9,067 9,857 9,065 8,852 9,801 Nakuru 1,152 1,338 1,124 691 657 Nyeri 195 507 148 270 319 All 13,723 15,733 13,778 12,907 14,040 The highest number of pending cases were in Nairobi ELRC at 9,801 cases followed by Mombasa and Kisumu at 1,535 and 724 cases respectively. The specific types of pending cases for each of the ELRC station at the end of the period under review are detailed in Table 2.21. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Table 2.21: Pending cases by case type in ELRC, 30th June 2021 ELRC Station CBAs Cause Disputes ELRC Petitions ELRC Misc. ELRC Appeals ELRC Reviews All cases Eldoret 0 540 125 14 7 12 698 Kericho 0 278 11 11 2 4 306 Kisumu 0 513 95 73 28 15 724 Mombasa 3 1,259 29 154 76 14 1,535 Nairobi 676 7,631 584 599 238 73 9,801 Nakuru 1 534 29 54 29 10 657 Nyeri 1 228 40 29 18 3 319 All Courts 681 10,983 913 934 398 131 14,040 The station that closed the year with the highest number of pending cases was Nairobi at 9,801 followed by Mombasa with 1,535. Kericho had the least at 306 cases. Across most of the stations, ‘cause disputes’ were the bulk of the pending cases. 2.7.3 Case Backlog in ELRC Out of the 14,040 cases that were pending in ELRC at the end of the review period, 11,220 cases were backlog. This was a 3 per cent increase from the 10,928 backlog cases that were recorded at the end of the previous financial year. The percentage distribution of case backlog by age in ELRC at the end of FY 2020/21 is illustrated in Figure 2.26. Figure 2.26: Percentage distribution of case backlog in ELRC Figure 2.26 reveals that 62 per cent of case backlog was aged between 1 and 3 years while 32 per cent of the cases were aged between 3 and 5 years. The category with the least backlog was that of above 5 years at 6 per cent. The case backlog for each ELRC stations is illustrated in Table 2.22. Table 2.22: Case backlog by age in ELRC ELRC Station 1-3 years 3-5 years Over 5 years ALL Eldoret 275 393 1 669 Kericho 190 101 3 294 Kisumu 223 82 87 392 Mombasa 713 444 90 1,247 Nairobi 5,140 2,349 379 7,868 Nakuru 269 200 59 528 Nyeri 198 18 6 222 All Courts 7,008 3,587 625 11,220 The highest backlog at the end of the review period was recorded at Nairobi ELRC with 7,868 cases followed by Mombasa with 1,247 and Eldoret with 669 cases respectively. Nyeri station had the least case backlog with 222 cases. 2.7.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in ELRC At the beginning of the SJT period in January 2017, there were 771 cases in ELRC aged 5 years and above. The progress in clearing these cases by June 2021 is given in Table 2.23. Table 2.23: SJT implementation status on reduction of case backlog in ELRC ELRC Station SJT target on reduction of cases older than 5 years, 1 st January, 2017 Resolved cases older than 5 years between 1 st January, 2017 and 30 th June, 2021 Case backlog older than 5 years as at 30 th June, 2021 Eldoret 0 54 1 Kericho 0 13 3 Kisumu 43 364 87 Mombasa 1 292 90 Nairobi 717 2,537 379 Nakuru 10 248 59 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6198 6198 ELRC Station SJT target on reduction of cases older than 5 years, 1 st January, 2017 Resolved cases older than 5 years between 1 st January, 2017 and 30 th June, 2021 Case backlog older than 5 years as at 30 th June, 2021 Nyeri 0 29 6 All Courts 771 3,537 625 Between January 2017 and the end of June 2021, ELRC managed to reduce case backlog aged 5 years and above by 19 per cent from the 771 cases to 625 cases. Though the court had not managed to clear all the cases as envisaged under SJT, the court resolved a total of 3,537 cases aged 5 years and above over the entire SJT period. The higher than target resolution of the cases is attributed to cases entering the age category of 5 years and above. 2.8 The Environment and Land Court (ELC) 2.8.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in Environment and Land Court In the FY 2020/21, there were 26 ELC stations spread across the country. During this period, 4,856 were filed and 5,748 cases were resolved. This translated into a CCR of 118 per cent, the highest in comparison to all other courts. The trend of filed and resolved cases in ELC since the FY 2014/15 is as depicted in Figure 2.27. Figure 2.27: Trend of Filed and Resolved Cases in ELC Figure 2.27 shows that both filed and resolved cases rose between the FYs 2015/16 and 2016/17. Thereafter, it took a downward trend up to the FY 2019/20. There was a rise in both filed and resolved cases between the FYs 2019/20 FY and 2020/21. Information on filing and resolution of cases in ELC stations since the FY 2015/16 as presented in the Table 2.24. Table 2.24: Trends of Filed and Resolved Cases, ELC ELC Station FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC Bungoma 112 144 263 436 107 195 111 83 70 135 70 163 Busia 144 14 267 209 140 65 85 195 63 104 134 167 Chuka - - 464 78 85 311 45 86 42 58 44 66 Eldoret 521 68 473 234 232 270 193 421 127 401 148 325 Embu 130 9 54 15 282 136 94 96 93 142 117 190 Garissa - - 62 32 68 24 27 31 12 12 28 25 Kajiado - - 201 18 88 177 112 317 124 192 236 158 Kakamega 262 10 117 16 294 600 221 444 172 341 111 251 Kericho 332 10 116 38 84 360 54 223 17 31 54 39 Kerugoya 875 217 308 190 125 154 60 38 44 117 75 42 Kisii 601 462 563 975 212 223 92 309 87 163 63 160 Kisumu 174 33 483 422 154 626 125 229 147 150 290 115 Kitale 193 98 388 307 89 175 118 129 48 80 107 95 Machakos - - 149 1,502 374 526 334 462 226 250 377 227 Makueni - - 327 2 92 167 52 96 59 155 66 67 Malindi 295 170 552 292 278 240 174 321 157 172 207 303 Meru 155 50 512 322 233 694 296 448 242 335 269 285 Migori - - 793 7 190 164 138 216 100 223 147 132 Milimani 1,437 141 936 428 991 963 806 1,811 441 1,497 1,043 1,519 Mombasa 408 250 445 474 494 521 467 387 338 156 432 371 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE ELC Station FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC Muranga - - 145 14 185 204 99 194 40 153 84 121 Nakuru 191 31 199 10 259 226 206 227 154 417 197 379 Narok - - 526 28 85 76 74 44 68 43 77 84 Nyandarua - - 418 22 107 59 68 157 20 39 25 58 Nyeri 329 129 318 220 163 587 99 108 103 26 105 66 Thika - - 691 16 423 144 344 90 162 126 350 340 All stations 6,159 1,836 9,770 6,307 5,834 7,887 4,494 7,162 3,156 5,518 4,856 5,748 “*” ELC station was not operational Suits were the most of the cases handled by the ELC followed by miscellaneous while appeals were the least. The breakdown of filed cases by case type in ELC stations is highlighted in Table 2.25. Table 2.25: Filed cases in ELC by type, FY 2020/21 ELC Station ELC matters ELC Reviews ELC Misc. ELC Appeals ELC Petitions Total Filed cases Bungoma 32 0 10 23 5 70 Busia 93 5 14 20 2 134 Chuka 15 7 12 8 2 44 Eldoret 96 7 21 16 8 148 Embu 74 7 15 18 3 117 Garissa 10 0 7 6 5 28 Kajiado 111 6 68 36 15 236 Kakamega 30 4 35 35 7 Kericho 37 1 8 4 4 54 Kerugoya 35 7 15 13 5 75 Kisii 35 1 5 13 9 63 Kisumu 134 14 42 73 27 290 Kitale 72 0 21 9 5 107 Machakos 198 27 66 52 34 377 Makueni 36 7 9 7 7 66 Malindi 142 3 33 6 23 207 Meru 86 19 41 90 33 269 Migori 51 2 22 40 32 147 Milimani 583 43 274 81 62 1,043 Mombasa 277 8 85 31 31 432 Muranga 53 1 10 18 2 84 Nakuru 119 8 28 26 16 197 Narok 43 8 11 9 6 77 Nyandarua 13 2 4 4 2 25 Nyeri 41 3 18 37 6 105 Thika 173 9 57 84 27 350 All Courts 2,589 199 931 759 378 4,856 Milimani ELC had the highest filed cases at 1,043 followed by Murang’a with 432 cases. Details on resolved cases for the ELC stations are provided in Table 2.26. Table 2.26: Resolved cases in ELC by type, FY 2020/21 ELC Station ELC matters ELC Reviews ELC Misc. ELC Appeals ELC Petitions Total Cases Bungoma 118 0 32 12 1 163 Busia 146 3 8 6 4 167 Chuka 29 3 16 15 3 66 Eldoret 242 12 38 13 20 325 Embu 141 9 15 15 10 190 Garissa 18 0 1 2 4 25 Kajiado 95 2 43 12 6 158 Kakamega 167 5 28 38 13 251 Kericho 30 1 5 2 1 39 Kerugoya 33 1 3 4 1 42 Kisii 114 5 17 17 7 160 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6200 6200 ELC Station ELC matters ELC Reviews ELC Misc. ELC Appeals ELC Petitions Total Cases Kisumu 72 3 19 16 5 115 Kitale 78 0 5 6 6 95 Machakos 142 15 24 35 11 227 Makueni 46 3 5 4 9 67 Malindi 220 7 32 12 32 303 Meru 93 33 44 92 23 285 Migori 98 3 15 12 4 132 Milimani 1,036 62 293 82 46 1,519 Mombasa 253 12 34 44 28 371 Murang’a 83 3 14 19 2 121 Nakuru 315 14 16 14 20 379 Narok 60 3 13 2 6 84 Nyandarua 22 2 5 23 6 58 Nyeri 34 4 15 10 3 66 Thika 239 7 40 36 18 340 All Courts 3,924 212 780 543 289 5,748 The highest number of resolutions was recorded at Milimani ELC with 1,519 resolved cases followed by Thika with 340 resolved cases. 2.8.2 Pending Cases in the ELC At the end of the FY 2020/21, the pending cases in ELC stood at 14,405 cases. This was a decline by nine per cent from the 15,892 cases that were pending at the end of the previous year. The change in pendency of cases in the ELC over time is shown in Figure 2.28. Figure 2.28: Trend of pending cases in ELC After a period characterized by increasing pendency between FY 2014/15 and FY 2016/17, a gradual reduction followed culminating in 14,405 cases by the end of June 2021. The reduction attests to the court managing to reduce its load of cases by resolving more cases than the number that is filed annually. The percentage distribution of pending cases by type at the end of the period under review is illustrated in Figure 2.29. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 2.29: Percentage distribution of pending cases in ELC by type The highest percentage of pending cases were the general ELC suits at 77 per cent followed by miscellaneous matters at 14 per cent. From Table 2.27, Mombasa had the most pending cases at 2,132 followed by Milimani with 1,370 and Eldoret with 1,129 cases. The breakdown of pending cases for each of the ELC station is presented in Table 2.27. Table 2.27: Pending cases by type in ELC, 30th June 2021 ELC Station ELC General Suits ELC Misc. ELC Appeals All case types Bungoma 58 68 68 194 Busia 308 12 20 340 Chuka 5 0 3 8 Eldoret 1,037 44 48 1,129 Embu 279 23 57 359 Garissa 33 19 14 66 Kajiado 199 29 27 255 Kakamega 123 25 27 175 Kericho 175 10 9 194 Kerugoya 591 116 168 875 Kisii 405 31 21 457 Kisumu 512 59 111 682 Kitale 610 21 5 636 Machakos 710 197 84 991 Makueni 37 8 11 56 Malindi 823 6 4 833 Meru 2 108 193 303 Migori 35 34 37 106 Milimani 801 494 75 1,370 Mombasa 1,538 488 106 2,132 Muranga 38 14 18 70 Nakuru 829 22 24 875 Narok 181 39 22 242 Nyandarua 190 2 3 195 Nyeri 634 68 77 779 Thika 882 75 126 1,083 All Courts 10,955 2,012 1,346 14,405 The least pending cases at the end of the review period were recorded at Chuka at eight and Makueni at 56 respectively. Figure 2.30 presents the pending cases by ELC station. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6202 6202 Figure 2.30: Distribution of Pending Case by Courts in ELC, 30th June 2021 The average pending cases by ELC station stood at 544 cases at the end of review period. The courts with highest pending cases and appearing above the upper quartile line were Machakos, Thika, Eldoret, Milimani and Mombasa. The courts with the least pendency, and appearing below the lower quartile line were Chuka, Makueni, Garissa, Murang’a, Migori, Kakamega, Bungoma, Kericho and Nyandarua ELC. 2.8.3 Case Backlog in ELC The case backlog in ELC stood at 11,517 cases in FY 2020/21. The distribution of case backlog by age is shown in Figure 2.31. Figure 2.31: Distribution of case backlog by age in ELC The highest chunk of case backlog in ELC was aged between 1 and 3 years at 41 per cent. Twenty-seven per cent of backlog cases were aged above five years. Detailed analysis of case backlog by ELC station is provided in Table 2.28. Table 2.28: Case backlog by age in ELC, 30th June 2021 ELC Station 1-3 years 3-5 years Over 5 years All backlog Bungoma 37 98 58 193 Busia 144 39 28 211 Chuka 4 2 0 6 Eldoret 369 306 307 982 Embu 128 97 18 243 Garissa 14 24 1 39 Kajiado 11 103 3 117 Kakamega 48 39 39 126 Kericho 83 54 8 145 Kerugoya 418 316 67 801 Kisii 134 78 226 438 Kisumu 145 75 173 393 Kitale 342 219 63 624 Machakos 344 195 76 615 Makueni 19 32 4 55 Malindi 397 152 79 628 Meru 16 50 58 124 Migori 49 21 8 78 Milimani 383 129 857 1,369 Mombasa 798 622 282 1,702 Muranga 18 35 17 70 Nakuru 24 292 408 724 Narok 88 72 7 167 Nyandarua 42 60 89 191 Nyeri 300 193 183 676 Thika 381 403 16 800 All Courts 4,736 3,706 3,075 11,517 At the end of the FY 2020/21, the highest case backlog was recorded at Mombasa with 1,702 cases followed by Milimani ELC with 1,369 cases. The least backlog was recorded at Chuka ELC station with six cases. 2.8.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in ELC In January 2017, there were 4,146 cases aged five years and above in ELC. This number formed the target for reduction to zero cases during the SJT period. Table 2.29 gives the performance of ELC regarding the reduction of case backlog of 5 years and above between January 2017 and June 2021. Table 2.29: SJT implementation status on reduction of case backlog in ELC ELC Station SJT target on reduction of cases older than 5 years, 1 st January, Resolved cases older than 5 years between st January, 2017 and 30 th June, 2021 Case Backlog older than 5 years as at 30 th June, 2021 Bungoma 372 422 58 Busia 34 238 28 Chuka 0 246 0 Eldoret 611 809 307 Embu 11 248 18 Garissa 0 31 1 Kajiado 0 8 3 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE ELC Station SJT target on reduction of cases older than 5 years, 1 st January, Resolved cases older than 5 years between st January, 2017 and 30 th June, 2021 Case Backlog older than 5 years as at 30 th June, 2021 Kakamega 67 495 39 Kericho 199 288 8 Kerugoya 55 141 67 Kisii 150 659 226 Kisumu 144 484 173 Kitale 208 301 63 Machakos 0 1,374 76 Makueni 0 10 4 Malindi 158 461 79 Meru 145 1,218 58 Migori 0 108 8 Milimani 988 3,540 857 Mombasa 452 1,017 282 Muranga 0 0 17 Nakuru 547 455 408 Narok 0 0 7 Nyandarua 0 10 89 Nyeri 5 81 183 Thika 0 27 16 All Courts 4,146 12,671 3,075 By the end of June 2021, there were 3,075 backlog cases aged 5 years and above in the ELC. This marked a 26 per cent reduction in comparison to the baseline of 4,146 cases. Although these cases never reduced to zero as targeted, ELC resolved a total of 12,671 cases aged 5 years and above. This translated into 206 per cent performance in comparison to the baseline number. 2.9 Magistrates’ Courts 2.9.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in Magistrates’ Courts There were 310,470 cases that were filed in 127 Magistrates’ Courts stations spread across the country in the FY 2020/21. This was an increase from the 298,838 cases that were filed in the FY 2019/20. Over the same period, 253,272 cases were resolved yielding a case clearance rate of 82 per cent. The trend of filed cases in the Magistrates’ Courts is illustrated in Figures 2.32. Figure 2.32: Trend of Filed Cases by Case Type, Magistrates’ Courts Filed cases increased by four per cent from 298,838 cases to 310,470 cases in comparison to the previous reporting period. Over time, filed criminal cases remained predominantly more than the civil cases. The curve for the criminal cases and that for the total cases are similar suggesting that the demand for justice in the Magistrates’ Courts is mainly driven by criminal matters. Figure 2.33 shows the change over time for the cases resolved. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6204 6204 Figure 2.33: Trend of Resolved Cases by Case type, Magistrates’ Courts The resolved cases, both criminal and civil matters, rose steadily from the FY 2015/16 up to the FY 2018/19. This was followed by a drop in the FY 2019/20, attributed to the adverse effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic. This was followed by a slight increase in the FY 2020/21. Figures 2.34 shows the percentage distribution of filed and resolved criminal cases in the Magistrates’Courts. Filed Criminal Cases Resolved Criminal Cases Figure 2.34: Percentage Filed & Resolved Criminal Cases in Magistrates’ Courts, FY 2020/21 Figure 2.34 shows that the broad sub- classification of criminal matters had the highest share of both filed and resolved cases at 73.1 and 74.7 per cent respectivelytraffic cases accounting for 21.6 and 21.7 per cent respectively. Sexual offences accounted for 4.5 and 3 per cent of filed and resolved cases respectively. The percentage distribution of filed and resolved civil cases in the Magistrates’ Courts is shown in Figure 2.35. Filed Civil Cases Resolved Civil Cases Figure 2.35: Percentage Filed & Resolved Civil Cases in Magistrates’ Courts, FY 2020/21 The general civil cases had the highest proportion for filed and resolved cases at 57.2 and 58.5cper cent respectively. They were followed by probate and administration cases at 30.2 per cent for filed and 25.5 per cent for resolved cases. Detailed information regarding the filed and resolved cases for all the stations of the Magistrates’ Courts are presented in the appendices. 2.9.2 Pending Cases in Magistrates’ Courts The number of pending cases in the Magistrates’ Courts rose from 483,864 at the end of the FY 2019/20 to 512,454 cases at the end of the FY 2020/21. Out of these pending cases, the pending criminal cases stood at 267,145 while civil cases were 245,309 cases. Figure 2.36 illustrates the change of pending cases in Magistrates’ Courts over time. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 2.36: Trend of pending cases, Magistrates’ Courts From Figure 2.36, there has been a steady increase in pending criminal cases in Magistrates’ Courts has steadily been rising since the FY 2015/16 to settle at 512,454 cases at the end FY 2020/21. From the FY 2017/18, the trend on pending criminal cases remained above that of civil cases signifying that the civil matters that had previously characterized the registries have been drastically reduced. The percentage distribution of pending criminal and civil matters are shown in Figure 2.37. Pending Criminal Cases Pending Civil Cases Figure 2.37: Distribution of Pending Cases by Type in Magistrates’ Courts, 30th June 2021 The general criminal matters were the bulk of pending case at 69 per cent. The percentage pending sexual offences and children criminal matters stood at ten and three per cent respectively. The general civil matters comprised the majority of pending civil cases at 68 per cent. They were followed by probate and administration cases at 14 per cent. The least pending cases were divorce and separation at four per cent. The caseload statistics on pending criminal and civil cases for all Magistrates’ Courts stations are provided in appendices. 2.9.3 Case Backlog in Magistrates’ Courts Out of the 512,454 cases that were pending cases in the Magistrates’ Courts at the end of FY 2020/21 the backlog cases amounted to 274,584. This marked a six per cent increase from 259,519 backlog cases that were recorded at the end of the previous year. The distribution of case backlog in Magistrates’ Courts by age is shown in Figure 2.38. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6206 6206 Figure 2.38: Distribution of case backlog by age in Magistrates’ Courts, 30th June 2021 The case backlog aged between 1 and 3 years in Magistrates’ Courts was 168,577 cases accounting for 62 per cent of the entire case backlog. A total 82,967 cases accounting for 30 per cent of case backlog was aged 3-5 years while 8 per cent (23,040 cases) was aged 5 years and above. The case backlog for each of the Magistrates’ Courts station is provided in the Appendices. 2.9.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog, Magistrates’ Courts At the commencement of SJT period in January 2017 there were 106,134 cases aged 5 years and above in the Magistrates’ Courts. By the end of FY 2020/21, these cases were 23,040 marking a 78 per cent reduction. The reduction of these cases to zero could not be realized owing to cases continuously entering into to the category of 5 years and above. The status on reduction for each of the Magistrates’ Court station is provided in the Appendices. 2.10 Kadhis’ Courts During the FY 2020/21, there were 47 Kadhis’ Court stations. The jurisdiction of the Kadhis’ Courts is limited to the determination of questions of Muslim law relating to personal status, marriage, divorce or inheritance. 2.10.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in Kadhis’ Courts In the FY 2020/21, a total of 8,954 cases were filed in the Kadhis’ Courts. This was an increase of 1,747 cases from the 7,207 cases that were filed in the previous year. A total of 7,230 cases were resolved in the FY 2020/21 rising from 5,261 cases that were resolved in the previous period. The trends of filed and resolved cases in Kadhis’ Courts are illustrated in Figure 2.39. Figure 2.39: Trends of filed and Resolved cases, Kadhis’ Courts From the FY 2015/16, there has been a gradual rise of the matters handled by the Kadhis’ Courts, Trends for the filed cases has remained above that for the resolved cases signifying a rise in the number of pending cases for the court. The specific types of cases filed in Kadhis’ Courts is provided in Table 2.30. Table 2.30: Filed cases in Kadhis’ Courts, FY 2020/21 Kadhis’ Courts Station Divorce Registration of Marriage Matrimonial Cause Misc Applica tion Registration of Divorce Marriages Succession Other Matters All Cases Balambala 14 13 0 0 2 13 0 0 42 Bungoma 9 18 17 11 1 6 1 0 63 Bura/Fafi 4 13 9 0 1 20 0 1 48 Busia 2 17 7 2 1 0 0 0 29 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Kadhis’ Courts Station Divorce Registration of Marriage Matrimonial Cause Misc Applica tion Registration of Divorce Marriages Succession Other Matters All Cases Bute 17 24 32 1 1 3 2 0 80 Dadaab 66 10 5 2 8 18 1 0 110 Eldas 16 18 0 2 3 2 0 0 41 Eldoret 9 5 21 20 3 2 4 0 64 Elwak 84 10 33 6 26 33 6 0 198 Garbatulla 18 10 26 15 1 0 8 0 78 Garissa 201 57 147 2 35 0 127 0 569 Garsen 32 14 26 3 9 11 2 0 97 Habaswein 18 14 7 2 0 3 0 0 44 Hola 30 2 10 17 7 6 10 0 82 Homa Bay 2 7 5 0 1 0 0 0 15 Ijara 33 30 1 0 18 11 0 0 93 Isiolo 51 126 52 53 33 0 30 0 345 Kajiado 8 2 19 1 6 0 18 0 54 Kakamega 4 12 2 2 2 1 2 0 25 Kakuma 80 120 24 25 32 0 2 0 283 Kericho 2 8 10 7 0 0 3 0 30 Kibera 4 2 0 6 1 1 15 0 29 Kilifi 13 17 68 76 10 4 61 0 249 Kisumu 11 21 0 9 3 0 11 0 55 Kitui 0 6 2 5 1 0 16 0 30 Kwale 4 51 4 11 0 0 402 0 472 Lamu 14 33 6 28 10 0 15 0 106 Machakos 7 81 0 5 6 83 5 0 187 Malindi 3 4 15 9 11 4 35 0 81 Mandera 55 12 30 25 5 5 58 0 190 Mariakani 9 30 0 2 6 157 19 0 223 Marsabit 26 6 20 1 0 0 18 0 71 Maua 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Merti 11 20 105 40 8 6 7 0 197 Modogashe 25 2 4 0 1 8 0 0 40 Mombasa 296 422 253 379 180 513 492 0 2535 Moyale 52 22 56 25 13 0 41 0 209 Msambweni 16 8 18 1 1 0 58 0 102 Nairobi 256 89 255 255 40 0 149 0 1044 Nakuru 8 4 22 2 6 0 4 0 46 Nyeri 4 4 5 0 1 0 14 0 28 Takaba 32 20 14 3 21 50 3 0 143 Thika 1 1 0 0 2 2 3 0 9 Vihiga 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voi 15 8 40 2 6 0 13 0 84 Wajir 58 27 95 47 35 4 7 0 273 Witu 34 37 5 27 13 31 13 1 161 Details on resolved cases in Kadhis’ Courts are provided in Table 2.31. Table 2.31: Resolved cases in Kadhis’ Courts, FY 2020/21 Kadhis’ Courts Station Divorce Registration of Marriage Matrimonial Cause Misc Application Registration of Divorce Marriages Succession Other Matters All Cases Balambala 10 8 1 0 1 5 0 0 25 Bungoma 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 Bura/Fafi 5 13 1 0 1 20 0 0 40 Busia 2 17 2 1 1 0 0 0 23 Bute 15 24 33 1 1 3 5 0 82 Dadaab 60 4 3 0 3 12 0 0 82 Eldas 17 18 0 2 3 2 0 0 42 Eldoret 5 5 20 19 4 4 6 0 63 Elwak 77 12 35 6 24 30 5 0 189 Garbatulla 22 11 35 14 1 0 11 0 94 Garissa 279 52 219 5 21 0 94 0 670 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6208 6208 Kadhis’ Courts Station Divorce Registration of Marriage Matrimonial Cause Misc Application Registration of Divorce Marriages Succession Other Matters All Cases Garsen 32 14 32 1 7 9 3 0 98 Habaswein 19 17 16 1 10 2 0 0 65 Hola 39 2 20 15 3 1 18 0 98 Homa Bay 0 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 7 Ijara 18 30 1 0 18 11 0 0 78 Isiolo 58 129 51 54 41 0 39 0 372 Kajiado 2 1 11 1 2 0 5 0 22 Kakamega 3 12 3 5 2 1 3 0 29 Kakuma 44 95 14 15 25 0 0 0 193 Kericho 1 14 6 3 0 0 3 0 27 Kibera 5 2 1 2 1 1 11 0 23 Kilifi 13 7 42 58 8 4 65 0 197 Kisumu 8 19 0 9 3 0 11 0 50 Kitui 1 8 3 5 1 1 27 0 46 Kwale 9 48 1 3 0 0 382 0 443 Lamu 34 0 3 17 0 0 23 0 77 Machakos 4 36 0 0 6 90 10 0 146 Malindi 16 0 11 2 0 0 34 0 63 Mandera 55 11 29 26 4 4 55 0 184 Mariakani 9 15 0 1 4 121 12 0 162 Marsabit 26 1 16 1 0 0 11 0 55 Maua 2 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 9 Merti 15 21 117 37 6 4 6 0 206 Modogashe 23 0 4 2 0 6 0 0 35 Mombasa 275 164 7 200 31 304 436 0 1,417 Moyale 54 18 55 24 10 0 46 0 207 Msambweni 11 7 16 1 1 0 34 0 70 Nairobi 227 70 206 145 22 0 116 0 786 Nakuru 4 4 21 1 6 0 2 0 38 Nyeri 3 3 1 0 0 0 15 0 22 Takaba 37 20 16 3 18 43 3 0 140 Thika 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Vihiga 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voi 18 3 42 2 6 0 15 0 86 Wajir 60 18 164 48 16 0 6 1 313 Witu 34 35 6 19 11 30 12 1 148 All courts 1,652 992 1,266 749 324 715 1,530 2 7,230 The Mombasa Kadhis’ Courts station resolved a total of 1,417 cases which was the highest across the country. This was followed by Nairobi station where 786 cases were resolved. 2.10.2 Pending Cases in Kadhis’ Courts By the end of the period under review, the pending cases in the Kadhis’ Courts were 8,062. This was an increase by 245 cases in comparison to the 7,817 cases that were pending at the end of the 2019/20 FY. The growth of pending cases in Kadhis’ Courts over time is shown in Figure 2.40. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 2.40: Trends of Filed and Resolved Cases, Kadhis’ Courts The specific information on pending cases over time for the Kadhis’ Courts is provided in Table 2.32. Table 2.32: Trend in pending cases, Kadhis’ Courts Kadhis’ Courts Station Pending cases 2013/14 Pending cases 2014/15 Pending cases 2015/16 Pending cases 2016/17 Pending cases 2017/18 Pending cases 2018/19 Pending cases 2019/20 Pending cases 2020/21 Balambala - - - 4 5 24 37 6 Bungoma 28 25 38 3 14 33 53 0 Bura/Fafi 3 11 Busia - - - 13 16 51 63 69 Bute - - 32 1 9 30 10 8 Dadaab - - 102 157 118 30 76 104 Eldas - - - 32 50 43 44 43 Eldoret - - 55 5 6 15 3 3 Elwak - - - 15 1 21 35 16 Garbatulla - - - 14 31 109 108 10 Garissa - - 252 206 280 459 543 442 Garsen 31 40 67 73 111 135 163 26 Habaswein - - 23 57 33 52 76 17 Hola 28 50 54 33 7 7 30 14 Homa Bay - 12 34 50 65 94 93 0 Ijara - - 20 28 26 33 33 32 Isiolo 29 29 138 54 33 64 61 34 Kajiado 8 8 5 15 16 38 47 79 Kakamega - 0 32 127 98 140 150 146 Kakuma - - 26 11 25 29 59 149 Kericho - 0 39 27 8 72 75 78 Kibera 22 26 23 10 18 31 40 46 Kilifi - - 55 102 28 74 58 110 Kisumu - 7 5 9 34 143 154 27 Kitui 312 434 154 60 12 17 7 9 Kwale 79 90 120 34 40 143 91 120 Lamu - 0 140 18 25 63 95 124 Machakos 3 10 14 7 33 51 63 104 Malindi 107 104 126 80 36 125 159 33 Mandera 68 73 117 110 122 147 162 44 Mariakani - - 15 3 37 151 159 6 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6210 6210 Kadhis’ Courts Station Pending cases 2013/14 Pending cases 2014/15 Pending cases 2015/16 Pending cases 2016/17 Pending cases 2017/18 Pending cases 2018/19 Pending cases 2019/20 Pending cases 2020/21 Marsabit 121 121 96 21 78 93 114 130 Maua - - - 2 7 3 4 5 Merti - - - 3 37 85 101 22 Modogashe 64 6 Mombasa 1,246 1,106 894 1,081 1,271 1357 1,948 3,066 Moyale 61 61 48 86 67 63 71 56 Msambweni - - - 30 40 79 70 102 Nairobi 185 219 192 57 663 1441 2,129 2,387 Nakuru - - 41 152 12 13 35 12 Nyeri 20 20 25 9 35 44 48 54 Takaba - - - 13 9 90 152 9 Thika 6 7 8 18 29 46 21 28 Vihiga 43 0 0 Voi 6 12 51 5 5 3 12 6 Wajir 4 4 213 131 165 218 282 242 Witu 4 12 20 16 27 All courts 2,364 2,458 3,254 2,970 3,767 6,022 7,817 8,062 The highest number of pending cases at the end of the FY 2020/21 was recorded at Mombasa Kadhis’ courts station with 3,066 pending cases. This was followed by Nairobi at 2,387 and Garissa with 442 pending cases respectively. 2.10.3 Case Backlog in Kadhis’ Courts At the end of the FY 2020/21, the case backlog in Kadhis’ Courts stood at 2,573 cases. The case backlog for each of the Kadhis’ Courts station is detailed in Table 2.33. Table 2.33: Case backlog in Kadhis’ Courts, FY 2020/21 Kadhis’ Courts Station Backlog, 30 th June, 1-3 years 3-5 years over 5 years All backlog, 30 th June, Balambala 3 0 0 0 0 Bungoma 5 0 0 0 0 Bura/Fafi 1 1 0 0 1 Busia 15 19 0 0 19 Bute 2 0 0 0 0 Dadaab 13 4 26 0 30 Eldas 29 37 0 0 37 Eldoret 0 0 0 0 0 Elwak 6 0 0 0 0 Garbatulla 20 1 0 0 1 Garissa 69 244 195 0 439 Garsen 0 0 0 0 0 Habaswein 20 5 0 0 5 Hola 6 12 1 0 13 Homa Bay 48 0 0 0 0 Ijara 7 5 0 0 5 Isiolo 25 30 3 0 33 Kajiado 5 21 0 0 21 Kakamega 72 78 0 0 78 Kakuma 7 89 0 0 89 Kericho 5 15 0 0 15 Kibera 6 13 3 0 16 Kilifi 9 97 6 0 103 Kisumu 33 21 0 0 21 Kitui 6 0 0 0 0 Kwale 24 90 0 0 90 Lamu 17 49 4 0 53 Machakos 13 100 3 0 103 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Kadhis’ Courts Station Backlog, 30 th June, 1-3 years 3-5 years over 5 years All backlog, 30 th June, Malindi 8 4 1 0 5 Mandera 94 13 1 0 14 Mariakani 2 6 0 0 6 Marsabit 31 62 1 0 63 Maua 0 0 0 0 0 Merti 12 0 0 0 0 Modogashe 4 2 0 0 2 Mombasa 184 673 11 0 684 Moyale 23 7 0 0 7 Msambweni 15 58 0 0 58 Nairobi 161 385 11 0 396 Nakuru 7 4 0 0 4 Nyeri 10 15 0 0 15 Takaba 9 0 0 0 0 Thika 6 8 0 0 8 Vihiga 0 0 0 0 0 Voi 0 1 0 0 1 Wajir 35 113 25 0 138 Witu 0 0 0 0 0 All courts 1,067 2,282 291 0 2,573 2.10.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in Kadhis’ Courts At the beginning of the SJT period in January 2017, there was no case backlog aged 5 years and above in Kadhis’ Courts. At the end of the review period, this status had been maintained. 2.11 Small Claims Court 2.11.1 Background on Small Claims Court The Small Claims Court (SCC) is established as a subordinate court pursuant to Article 169 (1) (d) & (2) of the Constitution. SCC Act No. 2 of 2016 further spells out the jurisdiction and procedures of the SCC. The court began its operations in late April 2021, having a single station located at 2.11.2 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Small Claims Court (April 2021-June 2021) During the FY 2020/21, 1,023 cases were filed. Over the same period, 637 cases were resolved. The percentage distribution of the filed and resolved cases by type is illustrated in Figure 2.41. Figure 2.41: Percentage Filed and Resolved Cases by Type in SCC, April 2021-June 2021 The breach of contract cases were the highest proportion of filed cases at 30 per cent followed by liquidated claims at 26 per cent. The least filed cases were civil miscellaneous applications at 2 per cent. Regarding the resolved cases, liquidated claims were the bulk at 35 per cent followed by personal injury cases at 25 per cent. The filed and resolved cases in the SCC are presented in Table 2.34. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6212 6212 Table 2.34: Filed and resolved cases in Small Claims Court, FY 2020/21 Case type Filed cases Resolved cases Breach of Contract 307 111 Civil Misc. Applications 19 6 Commercial Suits 247 140 Liquidated Claims 261 221 Non-Liquidated Claims 0 0 Personal Injury 189 159 All Case Types 1,023 637 The breach of contract cases were the highest filed cases at 307 followed by liquidated claims at 261 cases. Of the total resolved cases, liquidated claims were the highest at 221 followed by personal injury cases at 159 cases. The time taken to resolve cases in the SCC was 53 days, a figure lower than the minimum statutory requirement of 60 days in line with the SCC Act No. 2 of 2016. 2.11.3 Pending Cases in Small Claims Court The pending cases in the SCC stood at 386 cases at the end of the FY 2020/21. Most pending cases were breach of contracts at 51 per cent followed by commercial suits at 28 per cent. The percentage pending cases are summarized in Figure 2.42. Figure 2.42: Percentage Pending Cases by Type in SCC, April 2021-June 2021 The specific number of pending cases by case type are highlighted in Table 2.35. Table 2.35: Pending cases in Small Claims Court Case type Number of cases Breach of Contract 196 Civil Misc. Applications 13 Commercial Suits 107 Liquidated Claims 40 Non-Liquidated Claims 0 Personal Injury 30 All Case Types 386 By the end of the review period, 196 breach of contract cases were pending followed by 107 commercial suits. There were no liquidated claims that were pending by the end of June 2021. 2.11.4 Case Backlog in Small Claims Court At the end of the period under review, 13 of the pending cases in SCC were backlog. The percentage distribution of case backlog by age categories is demonstrated in Figure 2.43. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 2.43: Percentage case backlog by age in SCC, April 2021-June 2021 The backlog cases aged between 1 and 3 years were 77 per cent while those aged between 3 and 5 years were 23 per cent. The number of backlog cases in SCC is provided in Table 2.36. Table 2.36: Case backlog in Small Claims Court by age Age category Number of cases 1-3 years 10 3-5 years 3 Over 5 years 0 All backlog 13 Though the SCC was established in April 2021, the case backlog of 13 cases was occasioned by transfer of old cases from other courts. 2.12 Tribunals 2.12.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in Tribunals In the FY 2020/21, 5,335 cases were filed in Tribunals. Over the same period, 3,056 cases were resolved. The trend of filed and resolved cases in Tribunals for the last three years is illustrated in Figure 2.44. Figure 2.44: Trends of filed and resolved cases in Tribunals, FY 2018/19- 2020/21 Figure 2.44 shows that the trend for the filed cases has remained above that of the resolved cases depicting that pending cases has been on a rise. Although, the resolved cases increased in FY 2019/20 to settle at 4,268 cases as compared with 2,521 in the previous year, there was a decrease in the subsequent period to 3,056, owing to the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The details on filed and resolved cases is as presented in Table 2.37. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6214 6214 Table 2.37: Filed and resolved cases by tribunals, FY 2020/21 Tribunal Name Filed cases Resolved cases FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020/21 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 1. Business Premises Rent Tribunal 2246 2,261 2,077 1,065 1627 1039 2. Communication And Multimedia Appeals Tribunal 6 4 5 2 1 3 3. Competition Tribunal 0 6 2 0 2 3 4. Cooperatives Tribunal 1112 1149 631 570 1772 984 5. Copyright Tribunal 1 0 0 0 1 0 6. Education Appeals Tribunal 4 4 1 0 25 9 7. Energy & Petroleum Tribunal 0 1 54 0 0 10 8. HIV Aids Tribunal 28 28 20 0 28 27 9. Industrial Property Tribunal 5 4 10 0 8 8 10. Legal Education Appeals Tribunal 3 1 6 2 1 11 11. Micro And Small Enterprises Tribunal 0 22 14 0 21 6 12. National Civil Aviation Administrative Review Tribunal 3 10 9 1 9 4 13. National Environment Tribunal 30 40 26 25 63 58 14. Political Parties Disputes Tribunal 20 29 21 18 28 27 15. Public Private Partnerships Petition Committee 2 0 2 2 0 1 16. Rent Restrictions Tribunal 3052 2,306 2,397 810 593 779 17. Sports Disputes Tribunal 66 47 32 22 53 51 18. Standards Tribunal 10 5 4 4 2 3 19. State Corporations Appeals Tribunal 0 0 0 20. Transport Licensing Appeals Board 39 26 24 0 34 33 Total 6,627 5,943 5,335 2521 4268 3056 The Rent Restrictions Tribunal registered the highest filed cases at 2,397 cases followed by Business Premises Rent Tribunal with 2,077 cases. Over the same period, Business Premises Rent Tribunal resolved most cases at 1,039 followed by Cooperatives Tribunal at 984. 2.12.2 Pending Cases in Tribunals The pending cases in Tribunals have been increasing over time. This is illustrated in Figure 2.45. Figure 2.45: Trend on Pending cases in Tribunals Figure 2.45 shows an increasing trend of pending cases over time from 26,349 cases at the end of the FY 2018/19 to 30,485 cases at the end of review period. The pending cases by tribunal are provided in Table 2.38. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Table 2.38: Pending cases by Tribunal Stations Tribunal Name FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020/21 Business Premises Rent Tribunal 10342 10,976 12,014 Communication And Multimedia Appeals Tribunal 5 8 10 Competition Tribunal 0 4 3 Cooperatives Tribunal 4109 3,486 3,133 Copyright Tribunal 0 1 1 Education Appeals Tribunal 0 21 13 Energy & Petroleum Tribunal 0 1 45 HIV Aids Tribunal 48 48 41 Industrial Property Tribunal 13 9 11 Legal Education Appeals Tribunal 2 2 3 Micro And Small Enterprises Tribunal 0 4 12 National Civil Aviation Administrative Review Tribunal 2 3 8 National Environment Tribunal 35 12 20 Political Parties Disputes Tribunal 4 5 1 Public Private Partnerships Petition Committee 1 1 2 Rent Restrictions Tribunal 11765 13,475 15,093 Sports Disputes Tribunal 70 64 45 Standards Tribunal 4 7 8 State Corporations Appeals Tribunal 13 13 13 Transport Licensing Appeals Board 26 18 9 Total 26,439 28,158 30,485 At the end of the reporting period, the Rent Restrictions Tribunal (RRT) had the highest pending cases of 15,093 cases followed by Business Premises Rent Tribunal with 12,014 pending cases. The Cooperatives Tribunal had 3,133 pending cases. 2.13 Caseload Statistics Organised by Counties 2.13.1 Background on Caseload Reporting for Counties Wide sharing of information by public institutions is a key tenet of the Kenyan Constitution as espoused under Article 35. In the previous reports, caseload information was only presented using an approach that laid emphasis on court types. Though this has been maintained as a keyway of presenting caseload information even among other jurisdictions, the Judiciary recognizes that further disaggregation of caseload information by counties, the Kenyan symbol of devolved units, is important in creating wide sharing and awareness of access to justice through courts. This subsection therefore presents caseload information covering filed, resolved and pending cases in all the 47 Counties in Kenya. Though the structure of the Kenyan courts is not devolved, court stations are widely spread across the Kenyan territory with representation in each county. For instance, the caseload statistics for the Supreme Court, though placed under Nairobi County in this report, do not in any way depict that they originate from Nairobi County only. Also, caseload statistics for the COA, whose stations are located at Nairobi, Kisumu, Mombasa and Nyeri counties, do not indicate that the cases handled by these stations are only from those counties. They nonetheless generally depict the status of demand and supply of justice of the surrounding geographical regions. For courts with relatively high representation of stations across counties for instance the High Court and Magistrates’ Courts, caseload information closely represents what emanated in the respective counties. 2.13.2 Filed Cases by County 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6216 6216 Among the 356,997 cases that were filed in the entire republic, 64,111 cases were filed in Nairobi County at the top followed by Nakuru County with 21,923 cases. The least cases were filed at Samburu County with 933 cases and Mandera with 1,288 cases. The distribution of filed cases in all the counties is illustrated in in Figures 2.46 and 2.47. Figure 2.46: Map of filed cases across Kenyan counties, FY 2020/21 Figure 2.47 shows that a total of 35 counties were below the average of 7,596 filed cases. Other 12 counties were further below the lower quartile. Detailed statistics for the filed criminal and civil cases in each county and by court is provided in Table 2.39. Table 2.39: Filed cases by County, Court and Case type, FY 2020/21 County SC COA -CR COA -CC COA All HC- CR HC- CC HC-All ELRC ELC MC-CR MC- CC MC- All SCC Kadhis All CR All CC All Cases Baringo - - - - 131 48 179 - - 1,174 112 1,286 - - 1,305 160 1,465 Bomet - - - - 97 74 171 - - 4,107 507 4,614 - - 4,204 581 4,785 Bungoma - - - - 329 231 560 - 70 4,532 1,710 6,242 - 63 4,861 2,074 6,935 Busia - - - - 154 286 440 134 4,423 1,243 5,666 29 4,577 1,692 6,269 Elgeyo Marakwet - - - - - - - - - 1,115 217 1,332 - - 1,115 217 1,332 Embu - - - - 217 180 397 - 117 3,836 1,138 4,974 - - 4,053 1,435 5,488 Garissa - - - - 128 64 192 28 2,037 150 2,187 - 902 2,165 1,144 3,309 Homa Bay - - - - 190 176 366 4,909 2,019 6,928 - 15 5,099 2,210 7,309 Isiolo - - - - 968 169 1,137 - 620 968 789 1,757 Kajiado - - - - 110 229 339 236 3,855 1,490 5,345 - 54 3,965 2,009 5,974 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE County SC COA -CR COA -CC COA All HC- CR HC- CC HC-All ELRC ELC MC-CR MC- CC MC- All SCC Kadhis All CR All CC All Cases Kakamega - - - - 174 451 625 111 5,005 2,661 7,666 - 25 5,179 3,248 8,427 Kericho - - - - 177 216 393 34 54 4,183 572 4,755 - 30 4,360 906 5,266 Kiambu - - - - 507 771 1,278 350 12,996 5,867 18,863 - 9 13,503 6,997 20,500 Kilifi - - - - 278 362 640 207 2,916 1,894 4,810 - 330 3,194 2,793 5,987 Kirinyaga - - - - 161 146 307 75 4,990 1,892 6,882 - - 5,151 2,113 7,264 Kisii - - - - 66 131 197 63 5,565 2,606 8,171 - 5,631 2,800 8,431 Kisumu - 135 41 551 214 575 789 333 290 6,937 4,187 11,124 - 55 7,286 5,856 13,142 Kitui - - - - 197 176 373 - - 3,517 1,476 4,993 - 30 3,714 1,682 5,396 Kwale - - - - - - - - - 1,595 745 2,340 - 574 1,595 1,319 2,914 Laikipia - - - - 83 49 132 - - 4,187 486 4,673 - 4,270 535 4,805 Lamu - - - - - - - - - 1,680 99 1,779 - 106 1,680 205 1,885 Machakos - - - - 363 610 973 377 12,186 4,369 16,555 - 187 12,549 5,543 18,092 Makueni - - - - 261 180 441 66 5,003 1,572 6,575 - 5,264 1,818 7,082 Mandera - - - - - - - - - 711 46 757 - 531 711 577 1,288 Marsabit - - - - 31 88 119 - - 1,363 129 1,492 - 280 1,394 497 1,891 Meru - - - - 501 356 857 - 269 9,094 2,048 11,142 - - 9,595 2,673 12,268 Migori - - - - 113 188 301 - 147 4,183 910 5,093 - - 4,296 1,245 5,541 Mombasa - 14 212 226 221 836 1,057 274 432 10,287 3,432 13,719 - 2,758 10,522 7,944 18,466 Murang'a - - - - 276 193 469 84 6,873 2,906 9,779 - - 7,149 3,183 10,332 Nairobi 47 103 1,248 1,351 918 8,709 9,627 1,935 1,043 33,804 14,273 48,077 1,023 1,073 34,825 29,351 64,176 Nakuru - - - - 586 702 1,288 132 197 15,115 5,145 20,260 - 46 15,701 6,222 21,923 Nandi - - - - - - - - 2,162 698 2,860 - - 2,162 698 2,860 Narok - - - - 176 52 228 77 1,652 482 2,134 - - 1,828 611 2,439 Nyamira - - - - 93 113 206 - 4,438 895 5,333 - - 4,531 1,008 5,539 Nyandarua - - - - 12 13 25 - 25 4,174 378 4,552 - - 4,186 416 4,602 Nyeri - 103 274 377 236 288 524 180 105 6,849 1,967 8,816 - 28 7,188 2,842 10,030 Samburu - - - - - - - - - 834 99 933 - - 834 99 933 Siaya - - - - 255 153 408 - 4,252 1,853 6,105 - - 4,507 2,006 6,513 Taita Taveta - - - - 274 72 346 - 4,322 318 4,640 - 84 4,596 474 5,070 Tana River - - - - 110 23 133 - 1,113 95 1,208 - 340 1,223 458 1,681 Tharaka Nithi - - - - 137 67 204 - 44 2,282 641 2,923 - - 2,419 752 3,171 Trans Nzoia - - - - 587 254 841 - 107 5,748 579 6,327 - - 6,335 940 7,275 Turkana - - - - 7 8 15 - 1,122 62 1,184 - 283 1,129 353 1,482 Uasin Gishu - - - - 207 163 370 30 148 6,255 2,713 8,968 - 64 6,462 3,118 9,580 Vihiga - - - - 131 191 322 - 2,668 239 2,907 - - 2,799 430 3,229 Wajir - - - - - - - - - 939 9 948 - 438 939 447 1,386 West Pokot - - - - 76 16 92 - 1,362 54 1,416 - - 1,438 70 1,508 Grand Total 47 355 2,150 2,505 8,784 17,440 26,224 2,918 4,856 233,318 77,152 310,470 1,023 8,954 242,457 114,540 356,997 2.13.3 Resolved Cases by County During the review period, 294,837 cases were resolved in Kenya. Nairobi County had the highest share at 47,889 cases, followed by Kiambu with 17,037 cases. The least cases were resolved at Samburu County. The distribution of resolved cases by county is provided in Figure 2.48. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6218 6218 Figure 2.48: Distribution of resolved cases by county, FY 2020/21 Figure 2.48 shows that 12 counties had above average resolution of cases with the average resolved cases being 6,254 cases. Details on resolved cases are provided in Table 2.40. Table 2.40: Resolved cases by county, court and case type, FY 2020/21 County SC COA -CR COA -CC COA All HC- CR HC- CC HC- All ELR C ELC MC-CR MC- CC MC- All SCC Kadhis All CR All CC All Cas- es Baringo - - - - 84 66 150 - 978 56 1,034 - - 1,062 122 1,184 Bomet - - - - 30 39 69 - 3,932 369 4,301 - - 3,962 408 4,370 Bungoma - - - - 141 184 325 - 163 4,296 766 5,062 - 6 4,437 1,119 5,556 Busia - - - - 78 214 292 - 167 3,331 697 4,028 - 23 3,409 1,101 4,510 Elg. Marak- wet - - - - - - - - - 1,074 116 1,190 - - 1,074 116 1,190 Embu - - - - 256 328 584 - 190 3,709 1,357 5,066 - 3,965 1,875 5,840 Garissa - - - - 127 27 154 - 25 2,077 61 2,138 - 930 2,204 1,043 3,247 Homa Bay - - - - 189 400 589 - 4,209 1,259 5,468 - 7 4,398 1,666 6,064 Isiolo - - - - - 731 133 864 - 672 731 805 1,536 Kajiado - - - - 103 172 275 - 158 2,629 701 3,330 - 22 2,732 1,053 3,785 Kakamega - - - - 94 223 317 - 251 4,327 1,708 6,035 - 29 4,421 2,211 6,632 Kericho - - - - 108 104 212 49 39 3,862 340 4,202 - 27 3,970 559 4,529 Kiambu - - - - 219 501 720 - 340 11,777 4,198 15,975 - 2 11,996 5,041 17,037 Kilifi - - - - 174 260 434 - 303 1,888 884 2,772 - 260 2,062 1,707 3,769 Kirinyaga - - - - 188 179 367 - 42 4,107 1,201 5,308 - 4,295 1,422 5,717 Kisii - - - - 135 249 384 - 160 4,420 1,489 5,909 - 4,555 1,898 6,453 Kisumu 43 55 98 155 775 930 580 115 6,270 2,804 9,074 - 50 6,468 4,379 10,847 Kitui - - - - 208 155 363 - 3,481 1,289 4,770 - 46 3,689 1,490 5,179 Kwale - - - - - - - - 1,765 411 2,176 - 513 1,765 924 2,689 Laikipia - - - - 54 37 91 - 3,193 475 3,668 - 3,247 512 3,759 Lamu - - - - - - - - 1,400 75 1,475 - 77 1,400 152 1,552 Machakos - - - - 222 735 957 - 227 9,711 2,887 12,598 - 146 9,933 3,995 13,928 Makueni - - - - 232 78 310 - 67 4,287 781 5,068 - 4,519 926 5,445 Mandera - - - - - 658 46 704 - 513 658 559 1,217 Marsabit - - - - 20 9 29 - 1,426 153 1,579 - 262 1,446 424 1,870 Meru - - - - 493 583 1,076 - 285 9,700 1,870 11,570 - 9 10,193 2,747 12,940 Migori - - - - 60 209 269 - 132 3,882 1,171 5,053 - - 3,942 1,512 5,454 Mombasa 6 48 54 136 883 1,019 438 371 8,824 3,622 12,446 - 1,579 8,966 6,941 15,907 Murang'a 213 112 325 0 121 6,019 2,052 8,071 - 6,232 2,285 8,517 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE County SC COA -CR COA -CC COA All HC- CR HC- CC HC- All ELR C ELC MC-CR MC- CC MC- All SCC Kadhis All CR All CC All Cas- es Nairobi 62 121 774 895 406 8,343 8,749 986 1,519 26,042 8,190 34,232 637 809 26,569 21,320 47,889 Nakuru - - - - 386 1,232 1,618 166 379 11,657 2,840 14,497 - 38 12,043 4,655 16,698 Nandi - - - - 2,028 576 2,604 - - 2,028 576 2,604 Narok - - - - 211 75 286 84 1,227 331 1,558 - - 1,438 490 1,928 Nyamira - - - - 90 136 226 4,232 920 5,152 - - 4,322 1,056 5,378 Nyandarua - - - - 20 24 44 58 4,025 329 4,354 - - 4,045 411 4,456 Nyeri 101 92 193 368 421 789 133 66 7,214 1,687 8,901 - 22 7,683 2,421 10,104 Samburu - - - - - - - - - 799 67 866 - - 799 67 866 Siaya - - - - 308 139 447 - - 3,543 904 4,447 - - 3,851 1,043 4,894 Taita Taveta - - - - 117 44 161 - - 3,537 513 4,050 - 86 3,654 643 4,297 Tana river - - - - 93 15 108 - - 1,007 70 1,077 - 344 1,100 429 1,529 Tharaka Nithi - - - - 115 103 218 - 66 2,657 521 3,178 - - 2,772 690 3,462 Tranzoia - - - - 298 116 414 - 95 4,412 761 5,173 - - 4,710 972 5,682 Turkana - - - - 11 1 12 - - 801 24 825 - 193 812 218 1,030 Uasin Gishu - - - - 315 471 786 82 325 5,177 1,736 6,913 - 63 5,492 2,677 8,169 Vihiga - - - - 18 38 56 - - 2,219 282 2,501 - - 2,237 320 2,557 Wajir - - - - - - - - 875 30 905 - 502 875 532 1,407 West Pokot - - - - 47 12 59 - - 1,047 58 1,105 - - 1,094 70 1,164 Grand 62 271 969 1,240 6,522 17,692 24,214 2,434 5,748 200,462 52,810 253,272 637 7,230 207,255 87,582 294,837 2.13.4 Pending Cases by County At the end of the period under reference, a total of 649,112 cases remained unresolved in the entire country. Figure 2.49 shows the distribution of pending cases in Counties by the end of June 2021. Figure 2.49: Distribution of pending cases by county, FY 2020/21 The county that had the highest number of pending cases was Nairobi with 140,061 cases followed by Mombasa with 74,664 and Nakuru with 59,022 cases. Statistics on the pending cases in each county, organized by court and case types is provided in Table 2.41. Table 2.41: Pending Cases by County, Court and Case Type County SC COA -CR COA -CC COA All HC- CR HC- CC HC- All ELRC ELC MC- CR MC- CC MC- All SCC Kadhis’ All CR All CC All Cas- es Baringo - - - - 385 150 535 - - 536 83 619 - - 921 233 1,154 Bomet - - - - 310 396 706 - - 2,011 1,188 3,199 - - 2,321 1,584 3,905 Bungoma - - - - 778 2,359 3,137 - 194 5,571 3,524 9,095 - - 6,349 6,077 12,426 Busia - - - - 182 2,089 2,271 - 340 6,455 2,278 8,733 - 69 6,637 4,776 11,413 Elgeyo Marakwet - - - - - - - - - 433 170 603 - - 433 170 603 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6220 6220 County SC COA -CR COA -CC COA All HC- CR HC- CC HC- All ELRC ELC MC- CR MC- CC MC- All SCC Kadhis’ All CR All CC All Cas- es Embu - - - - 534 2,279 2,813 - 359 3,607 1,794 5,401 - 4,141 4,432 8,573 Garissa - - - - 450 257 707 - 66 1,443 392 1,835 - 601 1,893 1,316 3,209 Homa Bay - - - - 299 479 778 - - 5,089 2,512 7,601 - - 5,388 2,991 8,379 Isiolo - - - - - - 1,694 168 1,862 - 66 1,694 234 1,928 Kajiado - - - - 284 286 570 - 255 5,765 3,418 9,183 - 79 6,049 4,038 10,087 Kakamega - - - - 747 2,546 3,293 175 6,405 8,482 14,887 - 146 7,152 11,349 18,501 Kericho - - - - 634 1,140 1,774 306 194 3,647 1,493 5,140 - 78 4,281 3,211 7,492 Kiambu - - - - 1,550 1,469 3,019 - 1,083 11,507 15,742 27,249 - 28 13,057 18,322 31,379 Kilifi - - - - 525 847 1,372 - 833 5,938 1,896 7,834 - 143 6,463 3,719 10,182 Kirinyaga - - - - 282 2,111 2,393 - 875 5,360 4,462 9,822 - - 5,642 7,448 13,090 Kisii - - - - 190 160 350 - 457 6,754 6,509 13,263 - 6,944 7,126 14,070 Kisumu 1,374 1,300 2,674 660 887 1,547 724 682 13,725 9,211 22,936 - 27 15,759 12,831 28,590 Kitui - - - - 381 259 640 - - 3,575 3,368 6,943 - 9 3,956 3,636 7,592 Kwale - - - - - - - - - 2,202 2,658 4,860 - 222 2,202 2,880 5,082 Laikipia - - - - 710 138 848 - - 5,930 4,256 10,186 - 6,640 4,394 11,034 Lamu - - - - 0 0 0 - - 365 179 544 - 124 365 303 668 Machakos - - - - 1,162 2,210 3,372 - 991 9,570 8,634 18,204 - 104 10,732 11,939 22,671 Makueni - - - - 232 385 617 - 56 3,449 3,354 6,803 - - 3,681 3,795 7,476 Mandera - - - - - - - - - 290 37 327 - 69 290 106 396 Marsabit - - - - 29 87 116 - - 854 58 912 - 186 883 331 1,214 Meru - - - - 1,557 2,701 4,258 - 303 8,537 5,735 14,272 - 5 10,094 8,744 18,838 Migori - - - - 244 446 690 - 106 2,331 3,540 5,871 - 2,575 4,092 6,667 Mombasa 110 631 741 2,320 7,345 9,665 1,535 2,132 26,359 31,160 57,519 - 3,072 28,789 45,875 74,664 Murang'a - - - - 1,390 2,725 4,115 - 70 9,316 7,115 16,431 - 10,706 9,910 20,616 Nairobi 74 129 2,881 3,010 2,214 21,152 23,366 9,801 1,370 36,066 62,850 98,916 386 2,433 38,409 100,947 139,356 Nakuru - - - - 1,225 5,668 6,893 657 875 24,638 25,947 50,585 - 12 25,863 33,159 59,022 Nandi - - - - - - - - - 4,019 1,490 5,509 - - 4,019 1,490 5,509 Narok - - - - 127 243 370 - 242 1,540 2,071 3,611 - - 1,667 2,556 4,223 Nyamira - - - - 44 172 216 - 3,167 1,412 4,579 - - 3,211 1,584 4,795 Nyandarua - - - - 192 231 423 - 195 689 229 918 - - 881 655 1,536 Nyeri 540 1,825 2,365 528 2,054 2,582 319 779 3,300 4,945 8,245 - 54 4,368 9,976 14,344 Samburu - - - - 0 0 0 - - 309 69 378 - - 309 69 378 Siaya - - - - 75 88 163 - - 2,867 2,669 5,536 - - 2,942 2,757 5,699 Taita Taveta - - - - 340 199 539 - - 2,431 934 3,365 - 6 2,771 1,139 3,910 Tana River - - - - 113 82 195 - - 969 196 1,165 - 67 1,082 345 1,427 Tharaka Nithi - - - - 215 473 688 - 8 2,190 1,171 3,361 - - 2,405 1,652 4,057 Trans Nzoia - - - - 2,062 1,168 3,230 - 636 7,877 991 8,868 - - 9,939 2,795 12,734 Turkana - - - - 79 34 113 - - 1,821 200 2,021 - 149 1,900 383 2,283 Uasin Gishu - - - - 1,020 1,087 2,107 698 1,129 10,297 5,030 15,327 - 3 11,317 7,947 19,264 Vihiga - - - - 95 155 250 - - 3,192 1,394 4,586 - - 3,287 1,549 4,836 Wajir - - - - - - - - - 813 58 871 - 310 813 368 1,181 West Pokot - - - - 143 37 180 - - 2,242 237 2,479 - - 2,385 274 2,659 Grand Total 74 2,153 6,637 8,790 24,307 66,594 90,901 14,040 14,405 267,145 245,309 512,454 386 8,062 293,605 355,507 649,112 ACCESS TO JUSTICE: INSTITUTIONALISATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTES RESOLUTION MECHANISMS 2.14 Background on Institutionalisation of Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution The Constitution of Kenya under Article 159 (2) (c) promotes the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution by courts and tribunals in exercise of judicial authority. The mechanisms includes mediation, reconciliation, arbitration and the use of traditional methods. During the period under review, the Alternative Justice Systems (AJS) Baseline Policy and the AJS Framework Policy were finalized and launched. To oversee the implementation of the AJS Policy, the National Steering Committee was formed and mandated to cascade it to county level and develop guidelines. To give effect to the Constitution dictates, and as a strategic initiative, the Judiciary also prioritized Court Annexed Mediation (CAM), a mechanism with a huge potential of enhancing access to justice. The following sub-sections provides details on access to justice through CAM for the FY 2020/21. The referral of matters to CAM, settling of matters through CAM, including their monetary value and efficacy has been covered. By the end of the FY 2020/21, CAM had been operationalised in 50 court stations across the High Court, ELRC, ELC and Magistrates’ Courts. Out of the 50 court stations, 16 were High Court stations, 5 ELRC stations, 12 ELC stations and 17 Magistrates’ Courts stations. 2.15 Caseload Statistics for Court Annexed Mediation 2.15.1 Matters Referred, Processed and Pending under Court Annexed Mediation A total of 2,185 matters were referred to mediation by various courts during the period under review. This yielded a cumulative figure of 4,561 matters that were to be processed after consolidation with 2,376 matters that were pending at the end of the previous review period. Out of the 4,561 matters, 1,229 matters were processed successfully leaving a balance of 3,332 as pending by the end of FY 2020/21. Information on referral and processing of matters through CAM is provided in Table 2.42. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Table 2.42: Matters Referred, Processed and Pending under CAM, FY 2020/21 Court name Matters Pending, 30th June 2020 Matters referred, July 2020 to June Matters Processed, July 2020 to June Matters Pending, 30th June 2021 HIGH COURT 1 Eldoret HC 129 99 51 177 2 Embu HC 61 17 15 63 3 Garissa HC 23 8 1 30 4 Kakamega HC 270 209 145 334 5 Kerugoya HC 0 6 5 1 6 Kisii HC 10 12 12 10 7 Kisumu HC 89 122 43 168 8 Machakos HC non- settlement 54 29 11 72 9 Malindi HC 4 26 17 13 10 Milimani Civil Div 62 11 0 73 11 Milimani Commercial Div 166 110 39 237 12 MilimaniFamily Div 139 50 31 158 13 Mombasa HC 20 18 2 36 14 Nakuru HC 28 42 16 54 15 Nyamira HC 3 10 13 0 16 Nyeri HC 132 122 101 153 All High Courts 1190 891 502 1,579 ELRC 1 Eldoret ELRC 16 16 2 Kisumu ELRC 13 34 0 47 3 Milimani ELRC 102 117 66 153 4 Mombasa ELRC 55 3 0 58 5 Nyeri ELRC 3 5 1 7 All ELRC 189 159 67 281 ELC 1 Eldoret ELC 26 26 2 Embu ELC 12 21 10 23 3 Garissa ELC 0 0 4 Kakamega ELC 49 38 29 58 5 Kerugoya ELC 0 1 1 0 6 Kisii ELC 2 34 31 5 7 Kisumu ELC 80 27 8 99 8 Machakos ELC 26 8 2 32 9 Malindi ELC 3 3 10 Milimani ELC 54 62 15 101 11 Mombasa ELC 1 8 0 9 12 Nyeri ELC 58 11 1 68 All ELC 311 210 97 424 Magistrates’ Courts 1 Eldoret MC 42 78 44 76 2 Embu MC 26 35 30 31 3 Garissa MC 20 20 4 Kakamega MC 75 58 43 90 5 Kerugoya MC 0 10 3 7 6 Kisii MC 4 77 67 14 7 Kisumu MC 18 38 24 32 8 Machakos MC 9 Malindi MC 4 56 45 15 10 Milimani Children’s 103 190 110 183 11 Milimani Commercial 94 3 0 97 12 Mombasa MC 172 104 16 260 13 Nakuru MC 77 38 31 84 14 Nyamira MC 3 118 71 50 15 Nyeri MC 31 34 13 52 16 Siakago MC 0 29 11 18 17 Tononoka MC 17 57 55 19 All Magistrates’ Courts 686 925 563 1,048 All Courts 2376 2,185 1,229 3,332 The CAM achieved a 30 per cent processing rate in the matters that were dealt with. This was calculated through division of processed matters with the total matters (1,229) that were placed before the mediation process (4,561). 2.15.2 Uptake of Court Annexed Mediation by Courts The uptake of CAM, measured using the percentage of matters referred to mediation to total workload in a court, was below two per cent. This is illustrated in Figure 2.50. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6222 6222 Figure 2.50: Percentage uptake of CAM matters by courts, FY 2020/21 The highest uptake of CAM was in ELC at 1.012 per cent followed by ELRC at 1.005 per cent. The least uptake was recorded in the Magistrates’ Courts at 0.116 per cent. 2.15.3 Matters Settled through Court Annexed Mediation Out of 1,229 matters that were processed through CAM, 767 matters had settlement agreements. This implied that 462 matters were not settled. Figure 2.51 shows the percentage distribution of matters with and without settlement agreements. Figure 2.51: Distribution of settled and non-settled matters under CAM, FY 2020/21 The matters that had settlements stood at 62 per cent while those without stood at 38 per cent. The distribution of settlement and non-settlement of matters in different courts is demonstrated in Figure 2.52. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 2.52: Distribution of Settled and Non-settled CAM matters by court type, FY 2020/21 The Magistrates’ Courts had the highest proportion of settled matters at 49 per cent followed by the High Court at 42 per cent. The least proportion of settlement was in the ELRC at four per cent. A similar trend was observed for the non-settlements across various courts. The overall percentage distribution of matters with settlement agreements is shown in Figure 2.53. Figure 2.53: Distribution of Settled Matters under CAM by Mode of Settlement, FY 2020/21 The matters that had full agreements were 81 per cent followed by partial agreements at 14 per cent and consents at five per cent. Table 2.43 provides a breakdown of cases with settlement agreements across courts. Table 2.43: Matters settled through CAM by Mode of Settlement, FY 2020/21 Court name Full agreements Partial agreements Consents All settled matters HIGH COURT 1 Eldoret HC 22 4 0 26 2 Embu HC 4 1 0 5 3 Garissa HC 1 0 0 1 4 Kakamega HC 81 12 18 111 5 Kerugoya HC 4 0 0 4 6 Kisii HC 6 2 0 8 7 Kisumu HC 14 3 0 17 8 Machakos HC 6 0 0 6 9 Malindi HC 7 1 1 9 10 Milimani Civil Division 0 0 0 0 11 Milimani Commercial Div 9 3 0 12 12 Milimani Family Division 12 8 0 20 13 Mombasa HC 0 0 0 0 14 Nakuru HC 4 2 0 6 15 Nyamira HC 0 7 0 7 16 Nyeri HC 87 4 0 91 All High Courts 257 47 19 323 ELRC 1 Eldoret ELRC 2 Kisumu ELRC 0 0 0 0 3 Milimani ELRC 14 3 12 29 4 Mombasa ELRC 0 0 0 0 5 Nyeri ELRC 1 0 0 1 All ELRC 15 3 12 30 ELC 1 Eldoret ELC 2 Embu ELC 3 1 1 5 3 Garissa ELC 4 Kakamega ELC 14 1 0 15 5 Kerugoya ELC 0 0 0 0 6 Kisii ELC 8 4 0 12 7 Kisumu ELC 3 0 0 3 8 Machakos ELC 0 0 0 0 9 Malindi ELC 10 Milimani ELC 6 0 0 6 11 Mombasa ELC 0 0 0 0 12 Nyeri ELC 1 0 0 1 All ELC 35 6 1 42 Magistrates’ Courts 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6224 6224 Court name Full agreements Partial agreements Consents All settled matters 1 Eldoret MC 13 7 0 20 2 Embu MC 17 3 0 20 3 Garissa MC 4 Kakamega MC 27 6 0 33 5 Kerugoya MC 1 0 0 1 6 Kisii MC 26 3 0 29 7 Kisumu MC 13 6 0 19 8 Machakos MC 9 Malindi MC 23 8 1 32 10 Milimani Childrens 66 8 8 82 11 Milimani Commercial 0 0 0 0 12 Mombasa MC 9 3 0 12 13 Nakuru MC 17 0 1 18 14 Nyamira MC 50 6 0 56 15 Nyeri MC 13 0 0 13 16 Siakago MC 6 1 0 7 17 Tononoka MC 30 0 0 30 All Magistrates’ Courts 311 51 10 372 50 All Courts 618 107 42 767 Table 2.43 shows that 618 matters were fully settled, 107 matters were partially settled while 42 were concluded by way of consents. The fully settled matters marked a 33 per cent decrease from the 919 matters that were settled in the previous reporting period. The partially settled matters declined by 12 per cent in comparison to the 121 matters that finalized in the previous reporting period. The consents grew by 14 per cent from 37 in the FY 2019/20 to 42 in the FY 2020/21. 2.15.4 Matters Not Settled through Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) A total of 462 matters were not settled. This was occasioned by parties failing to reach an agreement, others failing to comply and the rest terminating the matters. The percentage breakdown of these reasons is presented in Figure 2.54. Figure 2.54: Distribution of Non-settled Matters under CAM by Mode of Non-settlement, FY 2020/21 Matters without agreements were at 58 per cent, followed by those that were terminated at 23 per cent. Table 2.44 shows the distribution of the non-settled matters for each of court station. Table 2.44: Categories of Non- settled Matters in CAM Court name No agreements Non compliance Terminated All non-settled matters HIGH COURT 1 Eldoret HC 18 2 5 25 2 Embu HC 9 0 1 10 3 Garissa HC 0 0 0 0 4 Kakamega HC 28 3 3 34 5 Kerugoya HC 1 0 0 1 6 Kisii HC 1 2 1 4 7 Kisumu HC 19 2 5 26 8 Machakos HC 0 0 5 5 9 Malindi HC 6 2 0 8 10 Milimani Civil Division 0 0 0 0 11 Milimani Commercial Division 14 5 8 27 12 Milimani Family Division 6 2 3 11 13 Mombasa HC 2 0 0 2 14 Nakuru HC 6 4 0 10 15 Nyamira HC 5 1 0 6 16 Nyeri HC 9 1 0 10 All High Courts 124 24 31 179 ELRC 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Court name No agreements Non compliance Terminated All non-settled matters 1 Eldoret ELRC - - - - 2 Kisumu ELRC 0 0 0 0 3 Milimani ELRC 25 6 6 37 4 Mombasa ELRC 0 0 0 0 5 Nyeri ELRC 0 0 0 0 All ELRC 25 6 6 37 ELC - - - - 1 Eldoret ELC - - - - 2 Embu ELC 2 1 2 5 3 Garissa ELC - - - - 4 Kakamega ELC 11 1 2 14 5 Kerugoya ELC 1 0 0 1 6 Kisii ELC 8 6 5 19 7 Kisumu ELC 5 0 0 5 8 Machakos ELC 0 0 2 2 9 Malindi ELC 10 Milimani ELC 3 6 0 9 11 Mombasa ELC 0 0 0 0 12 Nyeri ELC 0 0 0 0 All ELC 30 14 11 55 MAGISTRATE COURT 1 Eldoret MC 5 2 17 24 2 Embu MC 4 2 4 10 3 Garissa MC - - - - 4 Kakamega MC 10 0 0 10 5 Kerugoya MC 1 1 0 2 6 Kisii MC 12 16 10 38 7 Kisumu MC 5 0 0 5 8 Machakos MC - - - - 9 Malindi MC 4 1 8 13 10 Milimani Childrens 19 3 6 28 11 Milimani Commercial 0 0 0 0 12 Mombasa MC 2 0 2 4 13 Nakuru MC 7 5 1 13 14 Nyamira MC 11 4 0 15 15 Nyeri MC 0 0 0 0 16 Siakago MC 4 0 0 4 17 Tononoka MC 6 8 11 25 All Magistrates’ Courts 90 42 59 191 50 All Courts 269 86 107 462 Out of the 462 matters that were not settled through CAM, 269 had no agreements, representing a 58 percent decrease in comparison to the 646 matters that had no agreements in the previous period. In 86 matters, parties failed to comply with mediation rules, representing a decline by 221 of such matters in comparison with 307 that were recorded in the previous period. The matters that were terminated reduced from 160 that were recorded in the FY 2019/20 to 107 matters during the year under review. 2.16. Monetary Value of Cases Handled Through Court Annexed Mediation The monetary value of the cases that were referred to mediation in the FY 2020/21 was KSh7.1 billion. The value of the matters that were settled was KSh382 million down from KSh4.5 billion that was recorded in the FY 2019/20. The reduction was attributed to difficulties experienced in holding mediation sessions during the pandemic. The growth of the value of matters settled through CAM over time is shown in Figure 2.55. The trend shows the monetary amount in billions Kenya shillings that has been released back to the economy over time. There has been a positive growth from KSh6.98 billion in FY 2018/19 to KSh11.51 billion in 2019/20 before a mild growth was witnessed in 2020/21 of KSh11.89 billion. The mild growth is attributed to the reduced settlements of matters during the pandemic. Detailed statistics on monetary value of matters handled under CAM are presented in Table 2.45. Table 2.45: Monetary value of matters referred to mediation, FY 2020/21 Court name Cumula- tive value of matters referred to mediation, 30th June Value of matters referred to medi- ation, FY 2020/21 Cumula- tive value of matters referred to mediation as at 30th June Cumula- tive value of matters with set- tlement agreements, 30th June Value of matters with set- tlement agreements, FY 2020/21 Cumula- tive value of matters with settle- ment agree- ments, 30th June HIGH COURT 1 Eldoret HC 1,685,114,162 434,090,000 2,119,204,162 719,317,282 24,700,000 744,017,282 2 Embu HC 747,867 3,100,000 3,847,867 40,167 2,100,000 2,140,167 3 Garissa HC 731,419 0 731,419 556,000 0 556,000 4 Kakamega HC 327,163,048 102,500,000 429,663,048 70,574,219 32,441,902 103,016,121 5 Kerugoya HC 0 26,000,000 26,000,000 0 4,000,000 4,000,000 6 Kisii HC 380,488 12,459,400 12,839,888 0 18,107,108 18,107,108 7 Kisumu HC 265,864,884 344,000,000 609,864,884 13,261,353 0 13,261,353 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6226 6226 Court name Cumula- tive value of matters referred to mediation, 30th June Value of matters referred to medi- ation, FY 2020/21 Cumula- tive value of matters referred to mediation as at 30th June Cumula- tive value of matters with set- tlement agreements, 30th June Value of matters with set- tlement agreements, FY 2020/21 Cumula- tive value of matters with settle- ment agree- ments, 30th June 8 Machakos HC 187,309,123 158,300,000 345,609,123 66,879,006 0 66,879,006 9 Malindi HC 15,669,663 20,000,000 35,669,663 0 0 0 10 Milimani Civil Division 995,25 4,234 195,300,000 1,190,554,234 1,509,150 0 1,509,150 11 Milimani Commercial Divi- sion 24,347,675,688 1,367,000,000 25,714,675,688 3,531,243,120 216,530,836 3,747,773,956 12 Milimani Family Division 12,910,945,835 503,300,000 13,414,245,835 4,936,821,914 10,562,480 4,947,384,394 13 Mombasa HC 59,953,326 16,649,288 76,602,614 0 0 0 14 Nakuru HC 135,989,981 1,844,278 137,834,259 3,894,123 0 3,894,123 15 Nyamira HC 4,687,500 0 4,687,500 2,222,222 0 2,222,222 16 Nyeri HC 1,006,585,018 3,108,000,000 4,114,585,018 1,061,944,436 17,352,645 1,079,297,081 All High Courts 41,944,072,236 6,292,542,966 48,236,615,202 10,408,262,992 325,794,971 10,734,057,963 ELRC 1 Eldoret ELRC 2 Kisumu ELRC 74,093,492 0 74,093,492 0 0 0 3 Milimani ELRC 1,805,124,869 170,400,000 1,975,524,869 242,684,818 39,293,890 281,978,708 4 Mombasa ELRC 9,992,221 150,000 10,142,221 0 0 0 5 Nyeri ELRC 41,253,484 314,814 41,568,298 11,669,719 0 11,669,719 All ELRC 1,930,464,066 170,864,814 2,101,328,880 254,354,537 39,293,890 293,648,427 ELC 1 Eldoret ELC 2 Embu ELC 923,836 0 923,836 40,167 0 40,167 3 Garissa ELC 4 Kakamega ELC 59,484,191 12,500,000 71,984,191 9,537,057 5,733,918 15,270,975 5 Kerugoya ELC 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 6 Kisii ELC 1,078,048 0 1,078,048 0 0 0 7 Kisumu ELC 58,838,950 0 58,838,950 2,340,239 0 2,340,239 8 Machakos ELC 51,671,482 0 51,671,482 0 0 0 9 Malindi ELC 10 Milimani ELC 768,454,645 585,100,000 1,353,554,645 0 0 0 11 Mombasa ELC 26,645,923 0 26,645,923 0 0 0 12 Nyeri ELC 90,757,666 0 90,757,666 11,669,719 0 11,669,719 All ELC 1,057,854,741 598,600,000 1,656,454,741 23,587,182 5,733,918 29,321,100 MAGISTRATE COURT 1 Eldoret MC 1,327,665,703 10,160,265 1,337,825,968 553,320,987 4,922,000 558,242,987 2 Embu MC 1,539,727 2,802,205 4,341,932 160,667 2,471,600 2,632,267 3 Garissa MC 4 Kakamega MC 90,791,659 335,000 91,126,659 20,981,525 452,678 21,434,203 5 Kerugoya MC 0 4,000,000 4,000,000 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 6 Kisii MC 2,441,463 0 2,441,463 0 0 0 7 Kisumu MC 82,810,374 0 82,810,374 14,821,512 0 14,821,512 8 Machakos MC 9 Malindi MC 33,750,044 445,078 34,195,122 0 0 0 10 Milimani Children’s 66,264,697 0 66,264,697 8,833,262 0 8,833,262 11 Milimani Commercial 103,184,618 2,227,059 105,411,677 23,762,645 0 23,762,645 12 Mombasa MC 346,396,997 24,250,547 370,647,544 22,507,726 0 22,507,726 13 Nakuru MC 123,038,555 789,888 123,828,443 11,682,368 750,000 12,432,368 14 Nyamira MC 55,312,500 0 55,312,500 17,777,778 0 17,777,778 15 Nyeri MC 280,523,693 250,000 280,773,693 151,706,348 377,231 152,083,579 16 Siakago MC 0 4,000,000 4,000,000 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 17 Tononoka MC 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Magistrates’ Courts 2,513,720,030 49,260,042 2,562,980,072 825,554,818 10,973,509 836,528,327 50 All Courts 47,446,111,073 7,111,267,822 54,557,378,895 11,511,759,529 381,796,288 11,893,555,817 The cumulative value of matters that has so far been referred to mediation stood at KSh54.6 billion at the end of the FY 2019/20. The cumulative value of matters with settlement agreements stood at KSh11.9 billion at the end of the FY 2020/21 up from KSh11.5 billon that was recorded at the end of the FY 2019/20. 2.17 Efficacy of Court Annexed Mediation Determination and tracking of efficiency and performance of CAM is of paramount importance in continuously assessing whether CAM is realizing its envisaged goals or not. Some efficiency measures for CAM programme include, inter alia, Case Processing Rate (CPR), settlement rate (SR) and non- compliance rate (NPR). The CPR refers to the percentage of processed matters against the matters referred to CAM. The SR is the percentage of matters whose parties reached an agreement against the total processed matters. The NPR, which arises when parties fail to conform to mediation directions, refers to the percentage of non-compliance matters against the concluded matters. The efficiency of CAM is presented in Figure 2.56. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 2.56: Efficiency of CAM across Courts, FY 2020/21 During the period under review, the highest processing and settlement rates were recorded in the Magistrates’ Courts followed by the High Court. On termination and non-compliance rates, ELC had the highest at 11 and 16 per cent respectively followed by the Magistrates’ Courts at 8 and 10 per cent respectively. Detailed statistics on efficiency of CAM are provided in Table 2.46. Table 2.46: Efficacy of CAM, FY 2020/21 Court name Processing Rate Settlement Rate Non-Settle- ment Rate Termination Rate Non- Compliance Rate HIGH COURT 1 Eldoret HC 52% 51% 49% 10% 4% 2 Embu HC 88% 33% 67% 7% 0% 3 Garissa HC 13% 100% 0% 0% 0% 4 Kakamega HC 69% 77% 23% 2% 2% 5 Kerugoya HC 83% 80% 20% 0% 0% 6 Kisii HC 100% 67% 33% 8% 18% 7 Kisumu HC 35% 40% 60% 12% 5% 8 Machakos HC 38% 55% 45% 45% 0% 9 Malindi HC 65% 53% 47% 0% 12% 10 Milimani Civil Division 0% 11 Milimani Commercial Division 35% 31% 69% 21% 16% 12 Milimani Family Divi- sion 62% 65% 35% 10% 7% 13 Mombasa HC 11% 0% 100% 0% 0% 14 Nakuru HC 38% 38% 63% 0% 25% 15 Nyamira HC 130% 54% 46% 0% 8% 16 Nyeri HC 83% 90% 10% 0% 1% All High Courts 56% 64% 36% 6% 5% ELRC 1 Eldoret ELRC 2 Kisumu ELRC 0% 3 Milimani ELRC 56% 44% 56% 9% 10% 4 Mombasa ELRC 0% 5 Nyeri ELRC 20% 100% 0% 0% 0% All ELRC 42% 45% 55% 9% 10% ELC 1 Eldoret ELC 2 Embu ELC 48% 50% 50% 20% 13% 3 Garissa ELC 4 Kakamega ELC 76% 52% 48% 7% 4% 5 Kerugoya ELC 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 6 Kisii ELC 91% 39% 61% 16% 23% 7 Kisumu ELC 30% 38% 63% 0% 0% 8 Machakos ELC 25% 0% 100% 100% 9 Malindi ELC 10 Milimani ELC 24% 40% 60% 0% 40% 11 Mombasa ELC 0% 12 Nyeri ELC 9% 100% 0% 0% 0% All ELC 46% 43% 57% 11% 16% Magistrates’ Courts 1 Eldoret MC 56% 45% 55% 39% 7% 2 Embu MC 86% 67% 33% 13% 8% 3 Garissa MC 4 Kakamega MC 74% 77% 23% 0% 0% 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6228 6228 5 Kerugoya MC 30% 33% 67% 0% 33% 6 Kisii MC 87% 43% 57% 15% 28% 7 Kisumu MC 63% 79% 21% 0% 0% 8 Machakos MC 9 Malindi MC 80% 71% 29% 18% 3% 10 Milimani Childrens 58% 75% 25% 5% 3% 11 Milimani Commercial 0% 12 Mombasa MC 15% 75% 25% 13% 0% 13 Nakuru MC 82% 58% 42% 3% 17% 14 Nyamira MC 60% 79% 21% 0% 6% 15 Nyeri MC 38% 100% 0% 0% 0% 16 Siakago MC 38% 64% 36% 0% 0% 17 Tononoka MC 96% 55% 45% 20% 18% All Magistrates’ Courts 61% 66% 34% 10% 8% 50 All Courts 56% 62% 38% 9% 8% The processing rate dropped from 62 per cent in FY 2019/20 to 56 per cent In the FY 2020/21. There was an increase on settlement rate from 49 per cent that was realized in the FY 2019/20 to 62 per cent that was achieved in the FY 2020/21. The termination rate stood at 9 per cent while the non-compliance rate was 8 per cent during the period under review. 2.18 Challenges on Court Annexed Mediation and Plans for the Future Various challenges slowed down the targeted and expected growth of CAM during the period under review. The number of matters handled reduced due mitigation measures put in place by the Government to contain the COVID- 19 pandemic. Further, there were insufficient resources to support additional roll out of mediation across the country. Notably, inadequate use of virtual platforms in mediation affected dispute resolution. To support CAM, the Judiciary will finalize the Mediation Action Plan (2021- 2024) and enhance ICT platform for managing CAM cases. ACCESS TO JUSTICE: IMPROVEMENT OF JUDICIARY PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 2.19 Development of Physical Infrastructure The continued construction, installation and refurbishment of court infrastructure has always been part of the Judiciary’s strategy for enhancing access to justice The Judiciary physical infrastructure is primarily comprised of court and office buildings. However, other physical infrastructure like perimeter walls, waiting bays, ablution blocks, facilities like boreholes, as well as equipment’s like generators and solar panels are essential in supporting court work. The development of Judiciary infrastructure attracts huge capital outlay with some projects covering several FYs before completion. Construction of courts in new areas serves to reduce the distance travelled by litigants and thus enhance access to justice. When new courts are constructed within a pre-existing court precinct, the number of litigants that can be served at a single time increases. The refurbishment of court buildings also serves to enhance court space and conditions of court rooms and offices. Availing of generators for courts is important for enhancing access to justice through virtual platforms in absence of mainstream electric power. 2.20 Achievements on Growth of Judiciary’s Infrastructure a) Summary on Completed Construction Projects In the FY 2020/21, construction and renovation of 11 court buildings was completed. Detailed information is provided in Table 2.47. Table 2.47: Infrastructural projects completed in the FY 2020/21 S/No Project 1 Nanyuki Law Courts 2 Isiolo Law Courts 3 Kakamega Law Courts 4 Siaya Law Courts 5 Kajiado Law Courts 6 Nakuru Law Courts 7 Eldoret Law Courts (Renovations) 8 Oyugis Law Courts 9 Iten Law Courts 10 Shanzu Law Courts 11 Kahawa Law Courts The completed projects were seven High Court buildings at Nanyuki, Isiolo, Kakamega, Siaya, Kajiado, Nakuru and Eldoret. Further, four Magistrates’ Court buildings that were completed at Oyugis, Iten, Shanzu and Kahawa. In addition, office furniture was supplied to Muhoroni, Oyugis, Nyamira, Vihiga, Nyando, Kigumo, Molo, Chuka, Engineer, Makindu and Kibera law courts. The trend on completion rate over time for the construction projects is provided in Figure 2.57. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 2.57: Project Completion status At the end of the FY 2018/19 the completion rate for GOK projects at 62 per cent was higher than that of JPIP projects which stood at 55 per cent. However, in the succeeding years, the completion of GOK projects slowed down, a phenomenon attributed to budgetary cuts for the development expenditure, to settle at 69 per cent at the end of the FY 2020/21. The completion rate of JPIP projects increased rather rapidly in comparison to that of GOK projects to settle at 83 per cent at the end of the period under review. This reinforces the Judiciary viewpoint that with adequate and stable development funds, the propensity to timely completion of construction projects increases. b) Ongoing Court Construction Projects Under JPIP There was an overall growth by 7 per cent from the 77 per cent average completion status for JPIP projects that was reported in June 2020, to 84 per cent at the end of the FY 2020/21. Twelve court buildings funded by the World Bank through JPIP were undergoing construction or rehabilitation at the end of FY 2020/21. These projects were at Garissa, Voi, Kapenguria, Maralal, Kwale, Wajir, Ol- Kalou, Mombasa, Makueni, Kibera, Mukurweini and Kangema. The completion status for the ongoing projects under JPIP is presented in Figure 2.58. Figure 2.58: Project Completion Status, World Bank funded projects Five court buildings namely Ol-kalou, Wajir, Mukurweini and Kibera were below the average completion rate of 84 per cent. Three courts namely Makueni, Kangema and Kapenguria were above 95 per cent completion rate. Detailed information on completion status of construction and rehabilitation projects through JPIP is provided in the Table 2.48. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6230 6230 Table 2.48: Project completion status of JPIP funded projects Project Renovations or New Building Start Date Completion rate (June 30, 2020) Completion rate (June 30, 2021) 1. Garissa Law Courts New 22-01-16 83% 83% 2. Kibera Law Courts Rehabilitation 13-04-16 81% 81% 3. Voi Law Courts New 29-03-17 81% 84% 4. Kapenguria Law Courts New 21-03-17 75% 98% 5. Maralal Law Courts New 23-03-17 69% 85% 6. Kwale Law Courts New 05-06-17 75% 90% 7. Wajir Law Courts New 27-09-17 45% 68% 8. Ol-Kalou Law Courts New 18-09-17 42% 60% 9. Mukurweini Law Courts New 19-09-17 60% 70% 10. Mombasa Law Courts New 28-09-17 65% 85% 11. Makueni Law Courts New 25-09-17 87% 95% 12. Kangema Law Courts (Phase II) Rehabilitation 20-09-17 95% 97% 13. Kangema Law Courts (Phase II) Rehabilitation 20-09-17 95% 97% Average for Court Projects 73% 84% 14. Provision of Containers – Kisii, Hom Bay, Kitale, Meru, Kabarnet & Marsabit Renovations 04-11-17 25% 45% 15. Registry shelving, Customer care and Data centre – Milimani Law Courts Renovations 18-10-17 58% 97% 16. Registry shelving –Busia, Kisumu & Bomet Renovations 18-10-17 58% 58% 17. Borehole drilling and Equipping works at Nakuru, Engineer and Molo 13-02-18 90% 90% 18. Borehole drilling and Equipping works at Vihiga, Nyando and Siaya 14-02-18 99% 99% 19. Borehole drilling and Equipping works at Muhoroni, Oyugis and Nyamira 12-03-18 97% 97% 20.Borehole drilling and Equipping works at Makindu, Kigumo, Chuka & Garissa 12-03-18 50% 75% Average for other Projects 68% 80% Grand Average for all Projects 77% 83% c) Ongoing Court Construction Projects under GOK There was no construction project funded through GOK that was completed during the period under review. Nonetheless, 28 GOK budget funded projects were undergoing construction. The status on the completion of the projects funded by the Government of Kenya (GOK) as at June 30, 2021 was 69.4 per cent, representing a 5.6 per cent growth from 63.8 per cent that was recorded at the end of the previous period. Figure 2.59 gives the completion status of GOK projects. Figure 2.59: Project Completion Status, GOK funded projects Detailed information on completion rate of GOK funded projects is given in Table 2.49. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Table 2.49: Project completion status for GOK funded projects, 30 th June 2021 Project Renovations or New building Start Date Completion rate (June 30, 2020) Completion rate (June 30, 2021) On-Going 1 Homa Bay Law Courts On-going 13-03-17 32% 32% 2 Kabarnet Law Courts On-going 17-03-17 20% 35% 3 Marsabit Law Courts On-going 17-03-17 35% 70% 4 Amagoro Law Courts On-going 13-03-17 24% 48% 5 Githongo Law Courts On-going 04-05-17 56% 67% 6 Kandara Law Courts On-going 04-03-17 38% 38% 7 Machakos Law Courts On-going 18-05-17 67% 92% 8 Marsabit Law Courts (Residence) On-going 02-05-17 75% 75% 9 Mbita Law Courts On-going 15-03-17 57% 57% 10 Habaswein Law Courts On-going 28-09-17 10% 10% 11 Muranga Law Courts Renovations 19-05-15 79% 80% 12 Mandera Law Courts On-going 19-05-15 94% 94% 13 Narok Law Courts-Phase II On-going 26-10-15 85% 90% 14 Butali Law Courts On-going 09-03-15 83% 92% 15 Eldama Ravine Law Courts On-going 04-02-15 85% 90% 16 Port Victoria Law Courts On-going 12-02-15 93% 93% 17 Othaya Law Courts On-going 15-01-13 90% 90% 18 Wanguru Law Courts On-going 15-01-13 70% 70% 19 Marimanti Law Courts On-going 15-01-13 80% 80% 20 Bomet Law Courts On-going 15-01-13 98% 98% 21 Runyenjes Law Courts On-going 23-01-13 92% 92% 22 Tawa Law Courts On-going 23-01-13 96% 96% 23 Nyeri Court Of Appeal Renovations 17-04-14 95% 99% 24 Karatina Law Courts On-going 04-05-17 68% 68% 25 Makadara Law Courts Renovations 23-07-17 60% 65% 26 Forodha House Renovations 25-04-19 80% 94% 27 Lodwar Law Courts On-going 30-09-13 15% 15% 28 Bomet Law Courts On-going 05-10-13 10% 12% Overall growth 63.8% 69.4% d) Preliminary Tasks Undertaken Prior to Construction Before the commencement of actual construction works, a series of vital preliminary assignments are undertaken. During the period under review, a geotechnical survey of proposed new projects for the Court of Appeal complex, and that for Meru, Eldoret and Kisii High Courts was undertaken. The designs and tendering process for Meru and Eldoret projects was completed with construction works expected to begin in FY 2021/22. The procurement process for Kisii and the ultramodern Court of Appeal building were not completed and were expected to be finalized in FY 2021/22. e) Renovations Undertaken Diverse renovations were undertaken during the period under review. The Supreme Court building was renovated covering the CRJ’s office lounge, three chambers for Supreme Court Judges, Supreme Court registry, library and the shelving of audit offices. Milimani Commercial Court building was renovated covering Small Claims Court and the ELRC customer care office. Forodha House was renovated with most of the floor spaces already handed over to the users. Further, tribunal premises in Crescent House and View-park Towers, JSC offices at Re- insurance Plaza and the new JTI offices at KCB Leadership Center in Karen were refurbished. f) Provision of Container Courtrooms, Registries & Chambers Container courtrooms were set up in Meru, Ngong, Webuye, Limuru, Wanguru, Eldoret, Kikuyu and Bomet law courts. g) Boreholes Drilling and Equipping Boreholes were drilled and commissioned in Nyando, Siaya, Vihiga, Tamu, Oyugis, Nyamira, Molo, Nakuru, Engineer, Makindu, Kigumo and Chuka. h) Acquisition of motor vehicles To ensure mobility of and effective discharge of court roles, the Judiciary acquired vehicles for stations and judges. During the year under review 39 vehicles were purchased for various users, which included 10 land cruiser hardtops to facilitate the movements in courts operating in difficult terrain and marginalized areas. 2.21 Challenges Faced on Improvement of Judiciary Physical Infrastructure Diverse challenges slowed the progress of the court constructions, rehabilitations and refurbishments during the period under review. There was insufficient budget allocation for the development expenditure. The resource requirements for development for the FY 2020/2021 was KSh6.731 billion whereas the allocation was only KSh2.558 billion. Further, there was delayed release of exchequer to the Judiciary which hampered payments to the contractors. Additionally, COVID-19 pandemic restrictions affected movement of people and materials thereby slowing down construction works. CHAPTER 3—JURISPRUDENCE 3.0 Introduction The core mandate of the Judiciary is the dispensation of justice. In executing this mandate and in the discharge of judicial authority, as vested under Article 159 of the Constitution, Judges and Judicial Officers determine court cases and render rulings and judgments that go towards several goals. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6232 6232 They determine the rights of parties to a dispute, mete out sanctions against offenders, and promote and uphold the rule of law. Judicial pronouncements also play a critical role in the advancement of jurisprudence in any given jurisdiction. The FY 2020/2021 Judges and Judicial Officers across all levels of courts deliver judgments and rulings that played a pivotal role in the advancement of jurisprudence in the country. Most of these judgments were delivered virtually in line with the measures that were put in place to minimize the impact of COVID-19 in the justice sector. The Annual State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice Report presents the opportunity for the Chief Justice to showcase the growth of jurisprudence in our courts. This chapter therefore contains highlights of select cases that were decided in the reporting period. Due to the vast number of judgments from all courts, the chapter covers carefully selected judicial pronouncements that either restated the law, handled a novel area of law, clarified the rights of parties in areas where the law was not yet settled, or broke new legal ground. The cases are drawn from across all levels of courts and from diverse areas of law, ranging from succession disputes, criminal law, family law, civil and criminal procedure, commercial, employment and labour disputes, among others. 3.1 Jurisprudence from the Superior Courts 3.1.1 Supreme Court 3.1.1.1 Court Confirms the Right of Victims to Participate in Criminal Proceedings Joseph Lendrix Waswa v Republic, Petition No. 23 of 2019 [2020] eKLR, September 4, 2020 Brief Facts The appellant was charged with the offense of murder. After nine witnesses had testified for the prosecution, counsel for the father of the deceased (the victim) made an oral application for leave to actively participate in the proceedings. The trial court observed that the law had shifted the traditional parameters of a victim in a criminal case and therefore, a victim’s counsel could no longer be considered a passive observer in criminal proceedings. However, the trial court noted that the role of counsel for the victim could not be active and parallel to that of the prosecutor. Consequently, the trial court allowed the participation of the counsel watching brief limited to the following instances: on submitting at the close of the prosecution case whether or not there was a case to answer; final submissions should the accused be put on his defence; on points of law, should such arise in the course of trial; and upon application at any stage of the trial for consideration by the court. Aggrieved by the trial court’s ruling, the appellant lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal being satisfied that the impugned rights given by the trial court to the victim were in conformity with the Constitution of Kenya and the Victim Protection Act (No. 17 of 2014) (VPA), upheld the ruling of the trial court and dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. Issues i. Whether an advocate acting for the victim could be permitted to actively participate in criminal proceedings to safeguard the victim’s constitutional and statutory rights. ii. Whether allowing an advocate acting for the victim to actively participate in the criminal proceedings would violate the accused person’s right to a fair trial by exposing them to double prosecution. iii. What were the guiding principles in determining whether a victim or his legal representative could participate in a trial and the manner and extent of the participation? iv. Whether a victim or his legal representative could prosecute crimes on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Held 1. Although the adversarial criminal trial process was a contest between the State represented by the DPP, and the accused, usually represented by defence counsel, and the traditional role of victims in a trial often perceived to be that of a witness of the prosecution, that flowing from both the Constitution and the VPA and in particular section 9(2)(a) thereof, a victim too, had the right to participate in criminal proceedings. 2. Under Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute, victims before the International Criminal Court (ICC) were granted far-reaching rights. In light of the large degree of discretion accorded to the judges conducting the trial, the practice of the ICC had developed to allow victims to: a. Make an opening and closing statement; b. Attend and participate in hearings and status conferences through written submissions and oral argument; c. With leave of court, introduce evidence and challenge admissibility of evidence; and d. Question witnesses and/or the accused under the strict control of the court. Where there were a large number of victims admitted to participate in the proceedings, the court could limit the number of lawyers representing them. 3. The rights of victims did not undermine those of the accused or the public interest. The true interrelationship of the three was complementary. The participatory rights of the victim did not violate the fair trial rights of the accused. 4. The victim had no active role in the decision to prosecute, or the determination of the charge upon which the accused would finally be tried as that was the sole duty of the DPP. While the victim of a crime could participate at any stage of the proceedings as deemed appropriate by the trial court, a victim or his legal representative did not have the mandate to prosecute crimes on behalf of the DPP. The DPP had to, at all times retain control of, and supervision over the prosecution of the case. As such, the constitutional and Statutory power of the DPP to conduct the prosecution was not affected by the intervention of the victim in the process. 5. A victim could not and did not wear the hat of a secondary prosecutor. When victims presented their views and concerns in accordance with Section 9(2) (a) of the VPA, they were assisting the trial court to obtain a clear picture of what happened (to them) and how they suffered, which the trial court could decide to take into account. 6. The following guiding principles would assist the trial court when it was considering an application by a victim or his legal representative to participate in a trial and the manner and extent of the participation:- a. The applicant had to be a direct victim or such victim’s legal representative in the case being tried by the court; 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE b. The court should examine each case according to its special nature to determine if participation was appropriate, at the stage participation was applied for; c. The trial court had to be satisfied that granting the victim participatory rights did not occasion an undue delay in the proceedings; d. The victim’s presentation should be strictly limited to the views and concerns of the victim in the matter where the participation is granted; e. Victim participation should not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused; f. The trial court could allow the victim or his legal representative to pose questions to a witness who was giving evidence before the court that had not been posed by the prosecutor; g. The trial court had control over the right to ask questions and should ensure that neither the victim nor the accused were subjected to unsuitable treatment or questions that were irrelevant to the trial; h. The trial court should ensure that the victim or the victim’s legal representative understood that prosecutorial duties remained solely with the DPP; i. While the victim’s views and concerns could be persuasive; and in the public interest that they were acknowledged, those views and concerns were not to be equated with the public interest; j. The court could hold proceedings in camera where necessary to protect the privacy of the victim; k. While the court had a duty to consider the victim’s views and concerns, the court had no obligation to follow the victim’s preference of punishment. The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the right of victims to participate in criminal proceedings. 3.1.1.2 Court sets principles for de novo trials and the rights of parties in a case where an order for de novo hearing is made. Hussein Khalid and 16 others v Attorney General & 2 others, Application No. 32 of 2019 [2020] eKLR, September 4, 2020 Brief Facts The applicants had been arrested for participating in demonstrations outside Parliament’s gates dubbed, ‘occupy parliament’. They were detained and released on police bond and were required to report to the Chief Magistrate’s Court. They requested for particulars to be availed before arraignment before the magistrate. They were each given a charge sheet containing three offences. The applicants contended that the charges lacked sufficient detail to enable them take plea. They therefore objected to plea taking and demanded that the same awaits supply of evidence and better particulars. The court however overruled the objection and ordered them to take plea. They filed a Constitutional appeal against the ruling. The High Court dismissed the appeal. They appealed to the Court of Appeal and their appeal was similarly dismissed on grounds that it was unmerited. Aggrieved by the Court of Appeal decision, the applicants filed an application for review before the Supreme Court. The application for review was heard on July 10, 2018. Judgment was reserved for delivery on notice. On March 29, 2019, Hon. J.B Ojwang, SCJ, a member of the bench that had heard the appeal, was suspended. After Ojwang SCJ was suspended, the applicants sought for rehearing of the appeal de novo. Directions were taken on May 9, 2019 before Hon. Lenaola, SCJ. The parties entered into a consent for the matter to start de novo and for the appellants to file a supplementary record. Hon. J.B Ojwang was later reinstated and was part of the bench that rendered the decision. The applicants faulted the Court for rendering its judgment after the return of Hon. J.B Ojwang without setting aside the consent orders for de novo hearing that the parties had recorded. Issues i. Whether Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) that sought to secure the rights of parties in a trial, once a judicial officer hearing a case ceased to exercise jurisdiction over the matter, applied to civil proceedings. ii. What principles applied during de novo trials? iii. Whether introducing new evidence after hearing was concluded was against the principles of de novo hearing. iv. Whether consent directions issued after the suspension of a judicial officer still applied when the judicial officer was reinstated. Held 1. Under the de novo principle, once a judicial officer trying a matter ceased to exercise jurisdiction over a matter during pendency of trial, through transfer or other circumstances, his successor in jurisdiction gave the parties the right to elect how to proceed, that is, either to proceed from where the hearing had reached or start de novo. This ensured that the accused was not prejudiced by having a successor in jurisdiction, who never had the opportunity to appreciate the evidence of witnesses by observing their demeanour, credibility, emotions and such like factors, and deciding based on record, where such aspects of evidence could not be recorded in a detailed manner as required under Section 199 CPC.. 2. De novo hearings should not be taken as an opportunity to fill in gaps noted during the hearing by bringing a new set of evidence for the repeat trial. A de novo hearing was a continuation of a trial and not a second trial. 3. Introduction of new evidence after hearing was concluded was against the principles of de novo hearing whether it was ordered in review or in revision jurisdiction of a court. It muted the trial continuation intention signalling a second trial. 4. Additional evidence could be tendered but in very exceptional circumstances. Unless hearing was concluded and judgment reserved, new evidence could be availed in the course of a criminal trial, as long as the defence was afforded time to defend their case. 5. Section 200 of the CPC sought to secure the rights of parties in a trial once a judicial officer hearing a case ceased to exercise jurisdiction over the matter. Even though it was a criminal law principle it had been applied across the board in most of the hearings in furtherance of the constitutional right of fair hearing. 6. The return of JB Ojwang, SCJ onto the bench, by operation of law under Section 200 CPC had the effect of voiding the consent of the parties. His return signalled restoration of the status existing prior to the consent entered by the parties, meaning that judgment would be delivered as earlier directed. The consent therefore crumbled and stood vacated by operation of law even without any further order vacating it. 7. No amount of consent by the parties could confer jurisdiction on a court of law nor could one divest a court of jurisdiction which it possessed under the law. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6234 6234 Application dismissed; no order as to costs. 3.1.3 The Environment and Land Court (ELC) does not have the jurisdiction to determine issues that could be determined by other tribunals even when some of the issues raised elements that were within the ELC’s jurisdiction Benson Ambuti Adega & 2 others v Kibos Distillers Limited & 5 others, Petition No. 3 of 2020 [2020] eKLR, August 4, 2020 Brief facts The 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd petitioners had filed a constitutional petition before the Environment and Land Court (ELC) in Kisumu in which they claimed that their rights to a clean and healthy environment had been infringed. At the ELC, the respondents filed a preliminary objection that challenged the jurisdiction of the Court on the premise that it had usurped the mandate of legislatively constituted bodies and conferred upon itself powers that it did not have. The ELC held that it had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition, not by dint of powers conferred upon it by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution or Sections 4 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, but by dint of the provisions of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), and more particularly, Sections 129(1) and 130 thereof. The court justified its usurpation of the mandate of the National Environmental Tribunal and the National Environmental Complaints Committee, by citing Articles 23, 42, 47, 69 & 70 of the Constitution. Aggrieved by the decision of the ELC, the respondents appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the ELC contradicted itself by determining that some of the issues that were before it could properly be ventilated before the other legislatively mandated tribunals under EMCA, but chose to rather strangely arrogate upon itself the mandate to hear and determine those same issues. The Court of Appeal held that the ELC did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition, not pursuant to constitutional conferment of jurisdiction, but that that Court did not have the mandate to determine issues that could have been adjudicated in other appropriate forums. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue Whether the Environment and Land Court had the jurisdiction to determine issues which were not within its jurisdiction and which could have been effectively determined by another legislatively established tribunal where the matter was intertwined with matters within its jurisdiction. Held 1. The ELC determined quite incorrectly that it had the power or jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition, which although raising issues that were clearly within its purview, were also intertwined with other issues which were rather obviously not within its jurisdiction, and which could have been effectively determined by another legislatively established tribunal, in this instance, two bodies; the National Environmental Tribunal and the National Environmental Complaints Committee. 2. The trial and the appellate Courts correctly determined that the petition was multifaceted, and presented issues in an omnibus manner. The point of divergence between the two superior Courts was where the trial Court then went further to determine that those multifaceted issues could be determined by the Court in the interests of justice. The ELC had failed to appreciate that there were properly constituted institutions that were mandated to hear and determine the issues, but instead chose to arrogate to itself the jurisdiction to hear and determine all the issues raised in the petition. 3. Judicial abstention, as with judicial restraint, was a doctrine not founded in constitutional or statutory provisions, but one that had been established through common law practice. It provided that a Court, though it could be vested with the requisite and sweeping jurisdiction to hear and determine certain issues as could be presented before it for adjudication, should nonetheless exercise restraint or refrain itself from making such determination, if there would be other appropriate legislatively mandated institutions and mechanism. 4. The more favourable relief that the superior court should have issued was to reserve the constitutional issues on the rights to a clean and healthy environment, pending the determination of the issue with regard to the issuance of environmental impact assessment licenses by the 4 th respondent to the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents. The Court should have reserved the issues pending the outcome of the decision of the Tribunal. Preliminary objections by the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 5 th and 6 th respondents were upheld; the petition was struck out save that, noting the nature of the matter, the petitioners were at liberty to pursue their claims at the appropriate forum, taking guidance from the instant judgment and the judgment of the Court of Appeal; each party was to bear its own costs. 3.1.4 Where the landless occupy public land and establish homes thereon, they acquire not title to the land, but a protectable right to housing over the same. Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 3 others; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (Amicus Curiae), Petition No. 3 of 2018 [2021] eKLR, January 11, 2021 Brief facts This case revolved around the right to housing under Article 43 of the Constitution after the eviction and demolition of the homes of over 3,000 families residing in an informal settlement sited on public land, on grounds that their settlement lay on the flight path to Wilson Airport thus posing danger to the security of the public and air travellers. Issues i. The extent of applicability of international law, including guidelines by UN bodies, in interpretation and application of socio-economic rights under the Constitution of Kenya. ii. The role of U.N Guidelines in the interpretation and clarification of the Bill of Rights. iii. The right to housing as guaranteed by Article 43 of the Constitution. Held 1. The Court of Appeal took the position that the High Court could not reserve for itself any outstanding issues since it had become functus- officio after delivery of judgment. Structural interdicts were a suitable respite, that Article 23 (3) of the Constitution empowered the High Court to fashion appropriate reliefs, even of an interim nature, in specific cases so as to redress the violation of a fundamental right. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 2. Articles 2(5) and 2(6) of the Constitution recognized international law as forming part of the laws of Kenya and that Kenya was bound by its obligations under customary international law and its undertakings under the Treaties and Conventions to which it was a party. A Court would apply international law in resolving disputes before it, as long as it was relevant and not in conflict with the Constitution, local Statutes, or a final judicial pronouncement. 3. That guidelines are not binding upon the States parties, and do not form part of the law of Kenya in the language and meaning of Article 2 (6) of the Constitution, unless they had ripened into a norm of customary international law as evidenced by widespread usage. 4. That where the landless occupy public land and establish homes thereon, they acquire not title to the land, but a protectable right to housing over the same. As a result, every individual had an interest, however indescribable, unrecognizable, or transient, in public land. The Court elucidated that the right to housing over public land crystallized by virtue of a long period of occupation by people who had established homes and raised families on the land derived from the principle of equitable access to land under Article 60 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The right to housing in its basic form (shelter) need not be predicated upon title to land. 3.1.5 Whether the overlapping roles that Section 11(3) (cc) and (h) of the Capital Markets Act which vested in the Capital Markets Authority the dual statutory mandate as the investigator and enforcer of capital markets infractions in Kenya constituted a violation of Articles 47(1) and 50(1) as read with Article 25(c) of the Constitution Alnashir Popat & 7 others v Capital Markets Authority, Petition No. 9 of 2019 [2020] eKLR, Supreme Court, December 11, 2020 Brief facts This was an appeal made under Article 163(4)(a) against a judgment of the Court of Appeal which overturned the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal decision had held that the respondent was not in breach of Article 47 of the Constitution, the provisions of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, or the rules of natural justice, and as such, it was not a judge in its own cause as the Capital Markets Authority Act expressly authorized it to perform dual and overlapping inquisitorial and enforcement functions. Issues i. Whether the overlapping roles that Section 11(3) (cc) and (h) of the Capital Markets Act (CMA) which vested in the Capital Markets Authority the dual statutory mandate as the investigator and enforcer of capital markets infractions in Kenya constituted a violation of Articles 47(1) and 50(1) as read with Article 25(c) of the Constitution. ii. Whether those Sections which authorized overlapping roles should be declared unconstitutional. Held 1. The Court did not find that the overlap per se was unconstitutional. It was noted that the rights to fair administrative action and fair hearing were universal and that even though the natural justice principle of nemo judex in causa sua esse that provided that the overlapping mandate should ordinarily not be allowed was blurred when one presided in the adjudication of one’s cause or in a process that one had an interest in; an important exception to the principle was raised where the overlap of functions was a creature of Statute and as long as the constitutionality of that Statute was not in issue. 2. The Court recognized that security commissions were created for a variety of reasons and to respond to various needs including overseeing the filing of prospectuses, regulating the trade in securities, registering persons and companies who traded in securities, carrying out investigations and enforcing the provisions of the Act; and would therefore have repeated dealings in both administrative or adjudicative capacities with the same parties. It was for that reason and to achieve the efficiency required in the operations of the securities markets that the legislatures allowed for an overlap of functions. 3. Consequently, it was held that for purposes of efficiency in the carrying out of the objective of the CMA, especially in the expeditious disposal of disputes arising in the operations of the capital markets, the functions set out in Section 11(3)(cc) and (h) could not be performed by separate bodies. In that light, the Court also found that Section 11(3)(cc) and (h) of the CMA was not unconstitutional. 3.2 Court of Appeal 3.2.1 The Exhibition of a Medical Scheme Beneficiary Form as Evidence in Court did not amount to wrongful invasion of the right to privacy TOS vs Maseno University & 3 others, Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2016 [2020] eKLR, Court of Appeal at Kisumu, August 7, 2020 Brief facts The appellant filed a petition at the trial court on behalf of two children, one who was his child and the other one who was under his guardianship. The children were beneficiaries of the 1 st respondent’s medical scheme, being dependants of the appellant’s wife who was the 1 st respondent’s legal officer. In July 2014 the 4 th respondent filed a suit against the 1 st respondent (where the appellant was a director), and the Public Procurement Oversight Authority. The suit was about alleged interference with a procurement contract that had been awarded to the 4 th respondent by the 1 st respondent. Among the documents exhibited by the 4 th respondent in that suit were papers containing names and photographs of the two children and the appellant’s wife. The appellant contended that the information was private medical record and was not open to the 4 th respondent or the general public and that publication of the information was a violation of various provisions of the Constitution. The trial Court held that the consent of the appellant or his wife was not sought before the documents were exposed to third parties and that there was wrongful invasion of the children’s right to privacy However, the trial Court held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate how the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents were involved in the leakage of the information and proceeded to dismiss the petition with costs. Being aggrieved by the trial Court’s decision, the appellant preferred the instant appeal. Issues i. Whether the exhibition of a medical scheme beneficiary form in Court amounted to wrongful invasion of the contributors’ right to privacy as well as that of the two beneficiaries. ii. Whether a medical scheme beneficiary form which revealed the relationship between the contributor and beneficiaries was a medical record. Held 1. The right to privacy was not absolute; it could legitimately be limited by interests of others as well as public interest. 2. The material complained about by the appellant was not a medical record. What was exhibited was a medical scheme beneficiary form that revealed the relationship between the appellant and the 1 st respondent’s legal officer. Below the name of the appellant’s wife were the names of their 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6236 6236 two children, who were also named as beneficiaries of the 1 st respondent’s medical scheme, courtesy of their relationship with the appellant’s wife, which was factually correct. 3. What Article 31(c) of the Constitution prohibited was unnecessary revelation of information relating to one’s family or private affairs. Accurate and truthful documents that were filed by parties in Court for purposes of proving issues or questions in dispute in order to enable a Court reach a fair determination could not be said to amount to violation of Article 31(c). 4. The trial Court erred in finding that the exhibition of the medical scheme beneficiary form amounted to wrongful invasion of the appellant’s right to privacy as well as that of the two minors. Appeal dismissed. 3.2.2 The running of a bar by a Judicial Officer is not in itself evidence of gross misconduct and Conflict of Interest that would Warrant a Dismissal Judicial Service Commission v Joseph Riitho Ndururi, Civil Appeal No. 650 of 2019 [2021] eKLR, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, March 5, 2021 Brief facts The respondent joined the Judiciary in 2004 and had risen to the rank of Principal Magistrate when he was terminated. Pursuant to section 23 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, all judges and magistrates serving in the Judiciary at the time of the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, were to undergo a vetting process to determine their suitability to continue serving in the Judiciary. The Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Act (Vetting Act) was passed into law to give effect to section 23 of the Sixth Schedule in accordance with the requirements of Article 262 of the Constitution. The respondent appeared before the Vetting Board established under the Act and he responded to allegations of gross misconduct. The Vetting Board found him unsuitable to continue serving in office. The respondent applied for a review of the Vetting Board’s decision on various grounds including lack of jurisdiction to hear the matters as the Board’s jurisdiction lapsed on March 28, 2013, errors apparent on the face of the record and discovery of new and important matters after the making of the Vetting Board’s determination. The Vetting Board allowed only one ground for review which was the discovery of new and important matters and dismissed the rest. On grounds that it lacked jurisdiction, the Vetting Board referred the matter to the Judicial Service Commission on June 29, 2016. The appellant received complaints against the respondent and restarted a disciplinary process under the Judicial Service Act. While the disciplinary process was pending before the JSC, the Chief Justice placed the respondent on interdiction on August 21, 2017. After being given an opportunity to defend himself before the appellant’s Human Resource Committee, the respondent was dismissed from service. The reason for his dismissal was that the respondent had improperly and grossly misconducted himself by running a bar against the principle of impropriety contrary to Articles 172 (1) (a) (iv) and 75 of the Constitution. The respondent lodged a claim before the Employment and Labour Relations Court. He explained that the charges levelled against him (running a bar) were about events occurring on or about the year 2006, and that they were within the jurisdiction of the Vetting Board but not the JSC, as envisaged under the Constitution. He added that the appellant did not have the constitutional mandate to act retrospectively. Further, he stated that the disciplinary process which took 19 months violated his rights to fair administrative action and fair labour practices. He also said that he was not furnished with copies of the reports/ proceedings of the processes in breach of his right of access to information as provided for under Article 35 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the Court found that although there were valid reasons for the respondent’s dismissal, it was not fair because no evidence was adduced to demonstrate any inherent conflict of interest in the respondent running a bar. On various grounds, the appellant lodged an appeal against the decision and the respondent filed a cross-appeal. The cross- appeal was premised on various grounds including the respondent’s contention that the trial Court should have granted the remedy of reinstatement which was the most appropriate remedy. The respondent also contended that the trial court failed to consider his allegations about violation of his constitutional rights and to compensate him for the violations. Issues i. Whether the dismissal of a judicial officer from employment, on basis of allegations of gross misconduct and conflict of interest arising from running a bar was fair. ii. Whether regulation 23 of the Third Schedule of the Judicial Service Act was unconstitutional as it restricted a Judicial Officer’s rights to the minutes, reports and recorded reasons for dismissal. iii. When would the remedy of reinstatement be appropriate in a claim of unfair dismissal from employment? Held 1. The appellant had the burden of proving that the running of a bar by the respondent undermined the respondent’s judicial office and the Judiciary as a whole. An allegation that the running of a bar amounted to impropriety was insufficient; evidence had to be adduced to prove the impropriety. 2. There was no iota of evidence, or even a suggestion that the respondent used to serve litigants or other persons of dubious character in that facility. 3. The appellant failed to demonstrate any impropriety or appearance of impropriety on the part of the respondent supervising the running of a bar which was exclusively patronised by other senior civil servants in the area. Additionally, any conflict of interest arising from running the bar was not demonstrated. 4. The allegation that regulation 23 of the Third Schedule of the Judicial Service Act ought to have been declared unconstitutional by the trial court required the respondent to enjoin the Attorney General and Parliament as parties. Furthermore, the respondent did not prove the alleged unconstitutionality to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. The respondent did not provide proof that would lay a basis for compensation for violation of constitutional rights. The trial Court did not err in not awarding the respondent damages for breach of his constitutional rights. 6. The trial Court did not address itself on the issue of reinstatement as prayed for by the respondent. It did not explain why reinstatement was not granted. Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed in part. 3.2.3 Advocate hurling intemperate and demeaning words at the Court brought the Profession of Law and Administration of Justice to Disrepute 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Alfred Mincha Ndubi v Standard Limited, Civil Application No. 74 of 2019 [2021] eKLR, Court of Appeal at Kisumu, March 19, 2021 Brief facts The instant matter was an application for review of a ruling rendered by the instant Court on an application for injunction pending the determination of an intended appeal from the judgment of the High Court. The impugned ruling was delivered by two judges of the instant Court as the other judge had since retired. The ruling dismissed the applicant’s application that had sought an injunction pending appeal. The applicant submitted that the decision occasioned a great mistrial of his application and a great miscarriage of justice as only one judge wrote the ruling, the other read it online and the third said nothing. He averred that had the two judges written their own rulings, the shortcomings/inadequacies of a single judge would have been filled. The applicant further stated that it was a cardinal principle that each ought to write their own separate ruling or judgment. According to the applicant, no ruling was delivered in the strict sense of the law as delivery online by Skype was a system completely foreign to Kenyan law. Issues i. What was the form and content of concurring judgements? ii. Whether a judgement written by a single judge while the rest of the bench simply stated that they concurred with that decision amounted to a ground for review of that leading judgment. Held 1. On the merits of the instant application, whereas it was true that under rule 32(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules the statutory command was that each judge should render his or her own separate decision as a matter of course, there was room for single-judgments of the Court to be given where the decision was unanimous and the presiding judge so directed. Where one judge delayed, died, or ceased to hold office or was unable to perform the function of his or her office because of infirmity of mind or body, the rule required that separate concurring judgments should be given by the remaining members of the Court. 2. The rules did not prescribe the form or content of the concurring judgments and it was not uncommon for a leading judgment to be written in which the other judge or judges concurred by separate judgments. The concurring judgments could be as brief as a single sentence or could be full- fledged judgments complete with analysis of the law and a citation of authorities, it all depended on the subject. 3. The claim that the concurring judge restated but failed to properly apply the principles for stay of execution was a mischievous and mendacious claim. It smacked of discourtesy to the learned judge and to the Court. The applicant and his counsel set out to deliberately besmirch the dignity of the court. If they thought there were errors of law committed, and there were none, the way to redress them was certainly not by an application for review. Counsel ought to always remember that they were officers of the court and that respect and etiquette were marks of noble professionalism. Application disallowed with costs. 3.2.4 Equality of parties in marriage as envisaged in the Constitution does not translate to equal distribution of property upon divorce EGM v BMM, Civil Application No. 231 of 2018 [2020] eKLR, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, November 20, 2020 Brief facts The respondent BMM, filed an Originating Summons dated December 18, 2013 under Section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 of England (the repealed Act). This followed a divorce Petition filed by the appellant at the Chief Magistrate’s Court being Petition No. 6 of 2013. She asserted that following their marriage, which was solemnized on 3rd August 2001, the couple had acquired matrimonial property through joint funds and efforts. Her contribution towards such acquisition was both direct and indirect. The respondent accordingly sought for orders that the matrimonial properties, which were registered in the name of EGM, the appellant, be declared joint properties and be shared equally. The learned Judge granted prayers in the Originating Summons noting that the principal basis for division of matrimonial property were the Constitution and the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013. He held, crucially, that the provisions of the Act contradicted Article 45 (3) of the Constitution. He then resolved that conflict by holding that the provision of the latter on equality of parties at the dissolution of a marriage must hold sway. On that basis, he ordered equal division of the property in dispute. Disgruntled by the judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal citing 12 grounds. Issue The sole issue for determination by the court was whether the learned judge erred by using Article 45 (3) of the Constitution as a basis for the distribution of the matrimonial property on a blanket 50:50 basis. Held 1. Equality of spouses does not involve the re- distribution of property rights at the dissolution of marriage. The learned judge missed the mark on his interpretation of spousal equality as enshrined in that sub- Article 45(3) of the Constitution. 2. It was erroneous for the learned judge to assume and hold that the Constitution gives spouses an automatic 50% share of the matrimonial property simply by being married. The stated equality meant no more than that the Courts were to ensure that both parties at the dissolution of a marriage got their fair share of the property. This has to be in accordance with their respective contribution. Appeal allowed. Judgment of the superior court set aside. The suit be remitted to be re-heard at the Family Division by a different Judge. 3.2.5. Impact of failure of the High Court to render a decision within 45 days as contemplated by Section 175(3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act Aprim Consultants v Parliamentary Service Commission & Another, Civil Appeal No. E039 of 2021 [2021] eKLR, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, March 3, 2021 Brief facts The appellant, Aprim Consultants, was one of the bidders for a tender for the provision of Consultancy Services for Preparation of a Master Plan, Preliminary and Detailed Design, Tender Documents and Construction Supervision of the Proposed Centre for Parliamentary Studies and Training. However, the procuring entity – the Parliamentary Service Commission - terminated the said tender pursuant to section 63(1) (a) (l) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act on account of having been overtaken by operation of law. Aprim Consultants challenged the termination at the 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6238 6238 Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (the Board) which reversed the termination and directed PSC to complete the procurement process to its logical conclusion. PSC sought a review of the Board’s decision at the High Court. The High Court reversed the Board’s decision and issued a declaration that the letters of termination were valid. Aggrieved by that decision, Aprim filed an appeal, arguing that the learned judge erred in law in failing to render a decision within 45 days as contemplated by Section 175(3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. Section 175 (1) of the Act provides that a person aggrieved by a decision made by the Review Board may seek judicial review by the High Court within fourteen days from the date of the Review Board’s decision, failure to which the decision of the Review Board shall be final and binding to both parties. 175 (3) states that the High Court shall determine the judicial review application within forty-five days after such application, while 175 (4) provides that a person aggrieved by the decision of the High Court may appeal to the Court of Appeal within seven days of such decision and the Court of Appeal shall make a decision within forty-five days which decision shall be final. Section 175 (5) states that if either the High Court or the Court of Appeal fails to make a decision within the prescribed timeline under subsection (3) or (4), the decision of the Review Board shall be final and binding to all parties. It was not disputed that the judgment of the High Court was delivered some 185 days outside and beyond the 45 days set by the statute for the determination of the judicial review application. Issue Whether the failure of the High Court to render a decision within 45 days as contemplated by Section 175(3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act rendered the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board final and binding on all parties. Held 1. Although the reasons for the decision of the Court of Appeal were given outside the 45-day window mandated by Section 175(3) of the Act, the Court rendered its decision within this window and its decision was therefore valid. Rule 32(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules permit the Court to give its decision on an application or an appeal but reserve its reasons for a later date. 2. There are serious practical difficulties with meeting the timelines set by the Act such as the sheer numbers of such judicial review matters that get filed before the relevant division of the High Court; the limited number of judges to handle them; and numerous other matters. Besides, as public procurement is but one of the areas in administrative law that spawns judicial review applications, the wisdom of so short a timeline may be fairly questioned. 3. However, inconvenience or difficulty of compliance will never be an excuse for a court to go against the clear language of Parliament. The most a court can do is point out the difficulties created by such requirements and timelines and perhaps make proposals for reform, but as long as the law remains etched, in plain language, it is the province of the courts to interpret and give effect to its express language. 4. A perusal of section 175 of the Act reveals Parliament’s unmistakable intention to constrict the time taken for the filing, hearing and determination of public procurement disputes in keeping with the Act’s avowed intent and object of expeditious resolution of those disputes. 5. Parliament was thus fully engaged and intentional in setting the timelines in the Section. But it did not stop there. In one of the rare instances where all discretion is totally shut out, Parliament expressly enacted a consequence to follow default or failure to file or to decide within the prescribed times: the decision of the Board would crystallize and be vested with finality. 6 The High Court was under an express duty to make its determination within the time prescribed. During such time did its jurisdiction exist, but it was a time-bound jurisdiction that ran out and ceased by effluxion of time. The moment the 45 days ended, the jurisdiction also ended. Thus, any judgment returned outside time would be without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity, bereft of any force or effect in law. 7. The jurisdiction of the High Court in public procurement judicial review proceedings is expressly limited in terms of time and is not open to expansion by that court. To step out of time is to step out of jurisdiction and any act or decision outside jurisdiction is, by application of first principles, a nullity. Appeal allowed. Judgment of the superior court set aside. Certified copies of the judgment and the reasons be served upon the Hon. Attorney General and on the Hon. Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament. Note: The reasons for this decision was delivered on October 8, 2021. 3.3 High Court 3.3.1 Sentence for woman who had suffered years of domestic abuse and gender-based violence and was found guilty of manslaughter after killing her husband in self defense State v Truphena Ndonga Aswani, Criminal Case No. E011 of 2020 [2021] eKLR High Court at Siaya, March 9, 2021 Brief facts The accused was charged with the murder of her husband which occurred on 14 th December, 2020 in Ugenya Sub County within Siaya County. On the material day, the deceased returned home late while intoxicated, had dinner then picked a quarrel with the accused over a title deed to land which had been given to the accused person by her father in-law, the deceased’s father. As he demanded for the title deed from the accused, the deceased picked a panga from their bedroom, and as he raised it to assault the accused, the accused held it and used it to inflict several cuts on the deceased. The deceased died from his injuries resulting in the arrest of the accused who confessed to the killing upon interrogation by the police. On first arraignment, she denied the charge of murder before entering a plea agreement under whose terms the charge was reduced to manslaughter. She then pleaded guilty to manslaughter. In mitigation, both in person and through her counsel, the accused shared details of many years of domestic violence and abuse at the hands of her deceased husband, a fact which was confirmed in the Probation Report. Issues i. Whether the defence of self defence is absolute and whether it was available to the accused. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE ii. What would be an appropriate sentence to an accused person who having suffered many years of domestic abuse and gender-based violence killed their spouse in self defense. Held: 1. Self defence is an absolute defence where it is proved that the force used to kill the deceased in self defence is not excessive following imminent danger. 2. The facts coupled with the accused’s mitigation established killing in self defence. However, the accused used excessive force in defending herself considering the extent of the injuries inflicted and the fact that the deceased was intoxicated. 3. The maximum sentence upon conviction for manslaughter is life imprisonment. However, sentencing is in the discretion of the trial court. 4. A sentence imposed on an accused person must be commensurate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender. The Court should look at the facts and the circumstances of the case in it’s entirety before settling for any given sentence. 5. The accused did not deserve to be punished harshly as she was a victim of torturous domestic and gender- based violence. 6. Applying sentencing principles and guidelines to the case, the accused deserved a non- custodial sentence to enable her be counselled to recover from the traumatic experience that she underwent prior to, during and after the unfortunate demise of her husband. Accused convicted for manslaughter on her own plea of guilty, and sentenced to serve a non-custodial sentence of one day imprisonment, to last at the end of the day’s Court session. Court ordered further that the accused person be aided by the Court from the witness expenses vote with travelling expenses to reach a safe place of abode, other than her matrimonial home, assisted by the Probation Officer, who would also organize for counselling sessions to enable the accused person recover from the traumatic experience that she had with her late husband. 3.3.2 Whether murder suspects should be tried in the High Court in the first instance Charles Henry Nyaoke v The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Co-Ordination of National Government & 4 Others Constitutional, Petition No. 7 of 2018 [2020] eKLR, High Court at Kisumu, November 27, 2020 Brief facts The petitioner who had been charged with other persons with murder in the High Court in Kisumu filed a constitutional petition arguing that the trial of a murder suspect before the High Court as the court of first instance denies the accused person the right to one further step of appeal; is discriminatory and a breach of Article 25 and 27 of the Constitution as well as Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 3 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; it gives preferential treatment to accused persons whose trials commence before the magistrates’ court; elevates murder and treason to be more serious offences, yet they attract the same sentence of death as can be imposed by the magistrates’ court; and, that it is not supported by any specific legal framework or policy. The Attorney General opposed the petition, arguing, among others, that this issue had been heard and determined in Peter Kariuki Muibau & 11 others vs The Attorney General & Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] eKLR where the High Court held that the organisation of courts to hear different types of cases is necessary to ensure specialisation of court personnel at each level, and to ensure each Court understands the specific needs of the parties coming before it; that the right to fair trial does not necessarily mean all accused persons must enjoy the right to lodge two appeals; and that law makers had valid reasons for placing murder and treason in a different category from other criminal cases and this must have informed their decision to make provisions that their trials commence before the High Court. The DPP also opposed the petition on the basis that it amounted to questioning the validity of the Constitution in as far as it gives the High Court unlimited original jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases, and that the differentiation between murder and treason for purposes of their trial in the High Court as opposed to the lower courts was permissible. Issues i. Whether the petition was res judicata. ii. Whether the initiation of murder trials at the High Court violates the Constitution or other statutes. iii. Whether the petitioner or class of persons convicted of murder have been discriminated or denied their right of protection by or equality before the law. Held 1. The instant petition was not res judicata. The issues that were determined in the Muibau Case, though in rem, were not similar to the issues that were now before the Court. The petitioners in the former case had already been tried by the High Court, convicted and had exhausted their rights of appeal. In the instant petition, the petitioner had raised the question of jurisdiction of the High Court in limine unlike the former suit where the issue of jurisdiction of the High Court was an intellectual exercise. 2. There was nothing special to justify or require a criminal case to be tried before the High Court in only two case types, whilst all other criminal charges were tried before the magistrate’s Courts. 3. Other than the statutory requirements under the Criminal Procedure Code (the majority of which had been repealed), it was apparent that the trial of murder charges before the High Court was a historical accident flowing from colonial times when there were segregated criminal and civil justice systems that catered respectively for the Europeans, Indians and Africans. 4. Given the geographical distribution of Magistrates Courts vis- à-vis High Courts and the total number of Magistrates vis-à-vis Judges in Kenya (447:82 at the time of judgment), initiating murder trials at the Magistrates’ Courts would significantly lower the costs of the trial, reduce the distance to court and expedite delivery of justice. 5. The mere origination of the murder trial at the High Court was not unlawful because under Article 165, the High Court had original and appellate jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters. Nevertheless, initiating a murder trial in the High Court compromised an essential element of the right to a fair trial and denied the convict a vital step in the appellate chain. 6. The initiation of murder trials at the High Court was not supported by any specific legal framework or policy or logic. A close reading of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the First Schedule left no doubt that the High Court was to try murder charges by default. The policy that informed the law was no longer sound, and it would be a misnomer to say that there was a specific legal framework or policy in place that deserved to be upheld by the court. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6240 6240 Petition partly allowed. The Houranable Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Kenya Law Reform Commission ordered, jointly and severally, within 18 months of the judgment, to take such steps as were necessary to align sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the subsidiary legislation, regulations and rules thereof to the Constitution, and in particular to Article 27, 48 and 50 thereof. 3.3.3 Constitutionality of the Building Bridges Initiative constitutional amendment process and the Constitution of Kenya Amendment Bill, 2020 David Ndii & Others v Attorney General & others, Petition No E282 of 2020 (Consolidated with Petition Nos 397 of 2020, E400 of 2020, E401 of 2020, E402 of 2020, E416 of 2020, E426 of 2020 and 2 of 2021) [2021] eKLR, May 13, 2021 Brief facts In the aftermath of the contested 2017 presidential election, H.E. President Uhuru Kenyatta and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga signed a joint communique on March 18, 2018 committing to work together on nine issues that would cement unity and prosperity in Kenya. Following what was popularly referred to as the handshake, the President appointed a 14-member team - the Building Bridges to Unity Advisory Taskforce - whose key mandate was to come up with recommendations and proposals for building lasting unity in the country. In November 2019, the Taskforce came up with an interim report and on January 3, 2020, the President appointed the Steering Committee on the Implementation of the Building Bridges to a United Kenya Taskforce Report (the BBI Steering Committee) which comprised 14 members and two joint secretaries. The Steering Committee was required to engage in consultations with different segments of the public in order to validate the taskforce Report and also to propose administrative, policy, statutory or constitutional changes that could be necessary for the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Taskforce Report, while considering contributions made during the validation exercise. Published in October 2020, the report of the BBI Steering Committee contained, among other legislative proposals, a Bill to amend the Constitution of Kenya to implement the recommendations of the BBI process (the Constitution of Kenya Amendment Bill, 2020). Some of the key proposals in the Bill were: establishing 70 new Constituencies thereby increasing the number of elected Members of the National Assembly from 290 to 360; establishing an office of Judiciary Ombudsman, to be appointed by the President and to be a member of the Judicial Service Commission; creating the position of a Prime Minister nominated by the President, with the approval of the National Assembly from among MPs from the majority party; increasing to 30 days the time that the Supreme Court would have to resolve presidential election disputes, up from 14; permitting the appointment of some Cabinet Ministers from among elected Members of the National Assembly; enhancing the qualifications for appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal; and introducing a 10- year term limit for the Deputy Chief Justice. Having christened the process ‘an amendment by popular initiative’, the promoters of the Bill collected signatures from registered voters who supported the initiative in accordance with Article 257(1). The signatures were submitted to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) for verification. The Commission declared that the requisite number of voters had supported the initiative and submitted the Bill to County Assemblies. The Commission also confirmed that the Bill had been supported by a majority of County Assemblies as required by Article 257(7) and forwarded it to Parliament for approval. Eight constitutional petitions were filed in court to challenge the Building Bridges Initiative and the resulting Constitution Amendment Bill and its associated popular initiative. The petitioners attacked the process and the Bill on numerous grounds, key among them being: a. That Parliament had no power to amend certain provisions of the Constitution as they formed part of the basic structure; b. That the amendment powers reposed in Article 256 and Article 257 of the Constitution of Kenya can only be used to amend the “ordinary provisions” of the Constitution and do not extend to the power to “destroy the Constitution nor does it include the power to establish a new form of government or enact a new Constitutional Order” c. The hurried and rushed launch of the signature collection prior to availing the said Bill to the public for them to study, internalize and understand in detail what issues were proposed to be amended was a clear attempt to subvert the people’s free will to exercise their sovereign power since there was a likelihood of the public making uninformed choices over such an important exercise d. That the process of endorsement of the Amendment Bill and the collection of signatures thereof was being championed, campaigned for and pushed by the National and the County Governments as well as other State and public officers acting in their official capacities using public resources to finance, marshal and mobilize support for the said Amendment Bill e. That a popular initiative for the amendment of the Constitution of Kenya cannot be commenced by State actors, in particular, the President of the Republic of Kenya f. That a popular initiative in the amendment of the Constitution cannot be commenced and undertaken without a legal framework for the same g. That the creation of 70 constituencies by the promoters in the Amendment Bill was unconstitutional since the function of delimitation of the constituencies is vested in the IEBC h. That the amendment process which would culminate in a referendum was being undertaken without a nationwide voter registration exercise i. That Parliament had no power to act upon the Amendment Bill following the declaration of its unconstitutionality for want of enactment of the two thirds gender laws and the advisory opinion by the Chief Justice to the President for its dissolution j. That the IEBC lacked quorum to process the Constitution of Kenya Amendment Bill, and verification of signatures which are policy matters that it discharges under section 8 of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act, 2011 (IEBC Act) and the Second Schedule to the Act. Issues i. Whether the legal and judicial doctrines of the basic structure of a constitution, the doctrine and theory of unamendability of eternity clauses, the doctrine and theory of constitutional entrenchment clauses and unamendable constitutional provisions in a constitution are applicable in Kenya. ii. What provisions formed the basic structure of the Constitution of Kenya. iii. What were the implications of the basic structure doctrine in Kenya for the amendment powers provided under articles 255 to 257 of the Constitution? iv. Who could initiate constitutional amendments through a popular initiative as provided for under the Constitution? v. Whether the BBI Steering Committee’s process of initiating amendments to the Constitution conformed with the applicable legal and constitutional requirements. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE vi. Whether the President and public officers who directed or authorized the use of public funds for the BBI constitutional amendment process could be ordered to refund the monies so used. vii. Whether there was an adequate legislative framework to guide the process of undertaking constitutional amendments through a popular initiative and whether, if such a framework was inadequate or lacking, it would render any constitutional amendment processes incurably defective. viii. Whether County Assemblies could amend a Constitutional Amendment Bill initiated via popular initiative. ix. Whether the creation of 70 constituencies by the promoters in the Amendment Bill was unconstitutional since the function of delimitation of the constituencies is vested in the IEBC. x. Whether Parliament had power to act upon the Amendment Bill following the declaration of its unconstitutionality for want of enactment of the two thirds gender laws and the advisory opinion by the Chief Justice to the President for its dissolution. xi. Whether a referendum to effect proposed amendments to the Constitution could be undertaken without the conduct of a nationwide voter registration process by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. xii. Whether a legal regulatory framework for the verification of signatures by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and other processes required under article 257(4) and 257(5) of the Constitution was necessary and in existence. xiii. Whether the IEBC had quorum to process the Amendment Bill. Held 1. The text, structure, history and context of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, all read and interpreted using the canon of interpretive principles decreed by the Constitution yielded the conclusion that the basic structure doctrine was applicable in Kenya. The basic structure doctrine protected certain fundamental aspects of the Kenyan Constitution from amendment through the use of either secondary constituent power or constituted power. 2. The essential features of the Constitution that formed the basic structure could only be altered or modified by the people using their primary constituent power. Primary constituent power was only exercisable after four sequential processes had been followed: - a) Civic education to equip people with sufficient information to meaningfully participate in the constitution-making or constitution-altering process; b) Public participation and collation of views in which the people generated ideas on the type of governance charter they wanted. c) Constituent assembly debate, consultations and public discourse to channel and shape the issues through representatives elected specifically for purposes of constitution-making or constitution- alteration; and d) Referendum to endorse or ratify the Draft Constitution or changes to the basic structure of the Constitution. 3. There were two ways in which a constitutional amendment could be initiated, either by parliamentary initiative or by popular initiative. Subject to the role of the primary constituent assembly, there was no other constitutionally permissible avenue available to any person to initiate a constitutional amendment except the prescribed ones. 4. The constitutional amendment bill was an initiative of the President. It could not be otherwise since the BBI Taskforce was set up cou rtesy of his initiative and the subsequent BBI Steering Committee was tasked with implementing the BBI Taskforce Report and the membership of the two entities remained the same. 5. Under the Constitution, the President was not a Member of Parliament and therefore he could not directly, purport to initiate a constitutional amendment pursuant to Article 256 of the Constitution. The President had no power under the Constitution, as President, to initiate changes to the Constitution under Article 256 of the Constitution since Parliament was the only State organ granted authority by or under the Constitution to consider and effect constitutional changes. The President, if he so desired, could however, through the Office of the Attorney General, use the parliamentary initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. 6. Both a textual analysis of Kenya’s Constitution and a historical exegesis of the clause on popular initiative made it clear that the power to amend the Constitution using the popular initiative route was reserved for the private citizen. Neither the President nor any State Organ was permitted under the Constitution to initiate constitutional amendments using the popular initiative option. 7. Allowing the President to initiate constitutional amendments through the popular initiative would have had the effect of granting him both the roles of promoter and referee. That was because Article 257 (5) of the Constitution provided that if a bill to amend the Constitution proposed an amendment of matter specified in Article 255 (1) of the Constitution, before assenting to the bill, the President had to request the IEBC to conduct, within 90 days, a national referendum for approval of the bill. 8. Article 257 (5) of the Constitution, arguably, gave power to the President to determine whether or not a referendum was to be held. In circumstances where the President, whether in his official or personal capacity, was the promoter of the amendment bill, his role in determining whether or not the bill was to be subjected to a referendum could amount to a muddled-up conflict of interest. The President could not be both a player and the umpire in the same match. 9. It could not be argued that the President was acting in his personal capacity and not as the Chief Executive of the Republic of Kenya given that the BBI Steering Committee was established via a Gazette Notice, an official publication of the Government of the Republic of Kenya and its report was addressed to the President in his official capacity. 10. Article 257 of the Constitution was reserved for situations where the promoters of a constitutional amendment bill did not have recourse to the route contemplated under Article 256. If the President intended to initiate a constitutional amendment, he could do so through Parliament. 11. A popular initiative to amend the Constitution, being a process of participatory democracy that empowered the ordinary citizenry to propose constitutional amendments independent of the lawmaking power of the governing body, could not be undertaken by the President or State Organs under any guise. 12. The BBI Taskforce which eventually morphed into the BBI Steering Committee was the President’s and not the peoples’ initiative. The bill to amend the Constitution was as a result of the proposals of this Committee. To the extent that the BBI Steering Committee was created to perpetuate what was clearly an unconstitutional purpose, it was an unlawful, and at any rate, an unconstitutional outfit. 13. A reading of the Constitution clearly showed that only Parliament could enact legislation. However, that did not mean that only Parliament could draft bills. Therefore, anybody including the BBI Steering Committee, if lawfully established, could draft bills. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6242 6242 14. What the President did through the BBI Steering Committee was a clear attempt to stretch his authority under Article 13 1(2) (c) of the Constitution to include power to initiate constitutional amendments. The President’s role in promoting and enhancing national unity did not include initiating constitutional amendments through a popular initiative. 15. In order to carry out the referendum process as contemplated under the Constitution; it was necessary that legislation be enacted. The fact that the Constitution did not provide for the enactment of such legislation did not mean that the legislation was unnecessary. That legislation would deal with the manner in which County Assemblies would process a constitutional amendment bill, including the number of readings for the bill, the manner of conducting public participation, whether they could amend the bill before approving it and whether such a bill would be passed by a simple majority. It would also contain provisions on the correct procedure to be used by Parliament in approving the bill. 16. The absence of legislation to operationalize a constitutional provision would not render the provision inoperative or unenforceable. In the absence of enabling legislation for the conduct of a referendum, a referendum could be undertaken as long as constitutional expectations, values, principles and objects were met. 17. Depending on the proposed constitutional amendments, a multi-option referendum could be necessary. What the Constitution contemplated under Articles 255 to 257, was that each proposed constitutional amendment had to be presented as a separate question and considered on its own merit and not within the rubric of other amendments. Some proposed amendments could be agreeable to voters while the same voters could find that they did not agree with other proposed amendments. 18. The existing regulatory framework was not sufficient for the verification of signatures by the IEBC under Article 257(4) of the Constitution. To fill the gap, the IEBC developed Administrative Procedures approved on April 15, 2019. The Administrative Procedures were within the definition of statutory instruments provided under section 2 of the Statutory Instruments Act but they were not gazetted as required by section 22 of the Statutory Instruments Act. Therefore, the Administrative Procedures were invalid for lack of public participation as well as failure to comply with the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act. 19. In carrying out the verification process, the IEBC did not comply with the Administrative Procedures. The IEBC published a list of persons who had appended their signature in support of the constitutional amendment bill online and gave the public five days to raise any issues they had with the list. The period allowed for that process would be two weeks if the IEBC had complied with the Administrative Procedures. 20. Holding a referendum without voter registration, updating the voters register, and carrying out voter education, would particularly disenfranchise citizens who had attained voting age but had not been given an opportunity to register as voters, thus violating their constitutional right to vote and make political choices. Petition partly allowed. NOTE: An appeal against this judgment was pending at the Court of Appeal at the end of the reporting period. 3.3.4 Female Genital Mutilation cannot be rendered lawful because the person on whom the act was performed consented to it Tatu Kamau v Attorney General & 2 others; Equality Now & 9 Others (Interested Parties); Katiba Institute & Another (Amici Curiae), Constitutional Petition No. 244 of 2019 [2021] eKLR, High Court at Nairobi, March 17, 2021 Brief facts The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act (FGM Act) and the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Board (Anti FGM Board) formed thereunder. She pleaded that sections 2, 5, 19, 20 and 21 of the impugned Act contravened Articles 19, 27, 32 and 44 of the Constitution of Kenya by limiting the women’s choice and right to uphold and respect their culture, ethnic identity, religion, beliefs, and by discriminating between men and women. The petitioner contended that section 19 (1) of the FGM Act expressly forbade a qualified medical practitioner from performing female circumcision, thereby denying adult women access to the highest attainable standard of health, including the right to healthcare. The petition sought, among others orders, a declaration that sections 5, 19, 20, 21 and 24 of the impugned Act were unconstitutional and thus invalid. Issues: i. Whether female genital mutilation performed with the consent of the person on whom the act was done was legal. ii. What was the nature of public participation? iii. Whether a cultural practice could be deemed to be a national heritage iv. Whether the criminalizing of female genital mutilation and allowing male circumcision amounted to unreasonable discrimination v. Whether the prohibition of female genital mutilation on consenting adult women violated their right to human dignity Held: 1. There were no hard and fast rules for public participation. The petitioner failed to discharge the evidential burden to demonstrate that there was inadequate or no public participation. 2. The petitioner was unable to demonstrate a clear nexus between FGM and her right to manifest her religion or belief. The court was unable to impeach the offences created by sections 19, 20 and 21 of the FGM Act and held that the Anti FGM Board was properly created and that its functions were in conformity with the Act and the Constitution. 3. The exception in section 19(3) of the impugned Act to a surgical operation on another person which was necessary for that other person’s mental health had not been substantiated. Indeed, there was no evidence of a co-relation between circumcision of men or women and mental health. However, there was clear expert evidence that male circumcision had some health benefits including reduced rates of infection or reduced transmission of HIV. 4. The phrase ‘harmful cultural practice’ was not defined by Kenyan statutes. However, Articles 53 and 55 of the Constitution referred to harmful cultural practices in protection of children and the youth. Some harmful cultural practices were valued as traditional cultural heritage in some communities. 5. FGM was harmful to girls and women due to the removal of healthy genital parts. The FGM caused immediate, short term and long term physical and psychological adverse effects. The purposes of FGM were community culture-centered and not individual benefit centered. 6. A reading of section 19(6) of the impugned Act revealed that it was no defence to a charge under the section that the person on whom the act involving FGM was performed consented to that act, or that the person charged believed that the consent had been given. The implication of that was 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE that FGM could not be rendered lawful because the person on whom the act was performed consented to that act. No person could licence another to perform a crime. 7. Article 44(1) of the Constitution provided that every person had the right to participate in the culture of the person’s choice. Freedom was therefore an underlying element of the exercise of one’s right under the Bill of Rights, which included the right to participate in one’s cultural life. From the evidence of the survivors and those who escaped the cut, they all confirmed the misinformation, deception and societal pressure they were subjected to, to undergo the cut. 8. Whereas the evidence adduced pointed to discrimination, the discrimination was not unreasonable. The evidence of the medical experts confirmed the grim reality of the challenges posed by female circumcision ranging from difficulty in consummating marriages to difficulty in child birth, and in certain instances, death of the victims. 9. The FGM Act did not violate the Constitution or women’s right to dignity. 10. While the Constitution had a general underlying value of freedom, that value of freedom was subject to limitation which was reasonable and justifiable. Additionally, it had not inscribed the freedom to inflict harm on one’s self in the exercise of those freedoms. That was why the Penal Code prescribed offences such as attempted suicide in section 226 and abortion and allied offences in sections 158 to 160. Petition dismissed. The Attorney General ordered to forward proposals to the National Assembly to consider amendments to section 19 of the FGM Act with a view to prohibiting all harmful practices of FGM as set out in the judgment. Each party to bear its own costs. 3.3.5 Constitutionality of the indefinite closure of schools as part of measures to contain COVID-19 Joseph Enock Aura v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education, Science & Technology & 3 Others; Teachers Service Commission & 6 Others (Interested Parties), Constitutional Petition No. 2189 of 2020 [2020] eKLR, High Court at Nairobi, November 19, 2020 Brief facts The petition was brought in response to the Address to the Nation by the President on March 15, 2020 that directed the indefinite closure of schools among the measures for controlling the spread of COVID-19. The petitioner brought the petition on behalf of his children for compensation for the psychological suffering inflicted on them by the Government of Kenya’s closure of in-person learning. The Petitioner argued that the closure of schools was a breach of their freedom from psychological torture and the right to human dignity. The petition was also brought on behalf of millions of such other school going children. The petitioner also contended that the Executive through the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health had failed to provide the basis for the unilateral closure of schools without consultation with National and County Education Boards even after being probed by the petitioner. Those administrative actions were contended to be ultra vires the best interests of the child as constitutionally founded. Lastly, the petition opposed the community-based learning adopted by the Ministry of Education as a remedial measure for arresting the effects of COVID- 19 on education. The petitioners contended that the policy had no underpinning in law. Issues i. Whether the closure of schools following a directive issued by the President in a ‘State of the Nation Address’ as part of the measures put in place to combat COVID– 19 was unconstitutional. ii. Whether the closure of schools as part of the measures put in place to combat COVID–19 caused psychological harm to school children. iii. Whether enactments related to the COVID–19 pandemic met legal and constitutional thresholds with respect to the right to education of school children iv. Whether the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Science and Technology discharged its mandate under Article 53 (2) of the Constitution as read together with section 32 (2) of the Children’s Act, in the face of the open-ended closure of schools over the COVID–19 pandemic and whether it was in ‘the best interest of the child’ to re-open schools. v. Whether the Attorney General was liable for his failure to advise the Executive to adhere to the relevant statutory requirements when closing schools due to the COVID–19 pandemic? vi. Whether the community-based learning program was legal? Held: 1. Pursuant to the authority of the President under Article 131 of the Constitution and in exercise of Executive Authority, the President was entitled to address any issue of national concern as it arose as per Article 10 of the Constitution. The closure of schools following a directive issued by the President in the ‘State of the Nation Address’ did not violate the Constitution in any way. 2. The Petitioner pleaded, particularized, and proved that the closure of schools had caused psychological harm to school-enrolled children. 3. It was not the role of a Court to make determination of education plans for individual families or children to determine whether the government return to school plan was safe or effective. This was simply because the government had access to public health and educational expertise which was not available to the Court. The Courts were not in a position, without the expert evidence, to second guess the government’s decision making. 4. In deciding what educational plan was appropriate for a child, the Court must consider what was in the best interest of a child. The Court in seeking guidance in determining the education plan in the best interest of the child should consider, amongst many others, the following:- a. The high risk of exposure to COVID-19 that a child would face if he/she was or was not in school; b. Whether the child or a family member was at increased risk from COVID–19 as a result of health conditions or any other risk factors; c. The risk the child faced to their mental health, social development, academic development or psychological well-being from learning online; d. Any proposed or planned measures to alleviate any of the risks noted above; e. The ability of the parent or parents with whom the child would be residing during school days to support online learning, including competing demands of the parent or parents’ work, or caregiving responsibilities, or other demands. f. The health environment under which the child was exposed when out of the school. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6244 6244 5. The benefit of the petitioner’s school going children and other school children attending school in- person out-weighed the risks of COVID–19 provided the respondents ensured that COVID–19 measures and safety protocols were put in place and fully complied with in each and every school by both the learners and the teachers. 6. There was a genuine prospect that the effects of the indefinite closure of schools would permanently alter the lives of children caught in the apex of the COVID-19 pandemic. 7. Children who dropped out of school would not only face a higher risk of child marriage, child labour, and teenage pregnancies, they would also see their lifetime earning potential precipitously fall. Children who experienced family breakdowns during the period of heightened stress risk would lose the sense of support and security on which children’s wellbeing depended. 8. The best interest of any child was to be in school in-person as there was more control, guidance and provision of health safe measures in the school than leaving the children roaming in the villages or shanties or towns without observing any COVID-19 Health Protocols. 9. The Executive stepped beyond what the law and the Constitution permitted. They could therefore not seek refuge in illegality and hide under the twin doctrines of parliamentary privilege and separation of powers to escape judicial scrutiny. 10. The respondents did not rebut the petitioner’s contention that the community Based Learning program was unilaterally commenced, that there were no consultations with stakeholders and that there were no provisions in the Basic Education Act to support the program. The project was ultra vires the Act and was therefore null and void for all purposes and intentions. Petition allowed. 3.3.6. Whether local tribunals are subordinate courts under the Judiciary Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Judicial Service Commission & 2 others; Katiba Institute (Interested Party), Petition No. 197 of 2018 [2021] eKLR, High Court at Nairobi, March 11, 2021 Brief facts The Petitioner lodged a case seeking a declaration that Tribunals established pursuant to Article 169(1) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 are not part of the Executive machinery, nor are they independent adjudicatory bodies, but are subordinate courts which are an integral part of the Judiciary, and that the Judicial Service Commission is exclusively responsible for appointing and removing members of the tribunals established pursuant to Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, for establishing their rules of procedure and for doing anything incidental thereto to ensure their smooth operations as courts of law. He argued that Tribunals in Kenya suffer lack of unanimity in many aspects and that although Tribunals fall under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution, many of them are under the direct control and regulation of the Executive which is an infringement on the principle of separation of powers as, in most cases, the Executive is a party to the disputes before such Tribunals. The JSC took the position that local tribunals created under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution are indeed subordinate courts within the Judiciary by virtue of Articles 1(3)(c), 20(4) & (5) 24(3), 50(1), 159(1) &2, 164(3)(b), 165, 169(1)(d), 171 and 172 of the Constitution. The Attorney General partly opposed the Petition but agreed with the Petitioner that under Article 169(1) (d) of the Constitution, local tribunals are classified as subordinate Courts. The AG also agreed that the local tribunals need to be transited to the Judiciary from the various Ministries and Government Departments. However, to attain this, the AG contended that an Act of Parliament pursuant to Article 162(2) of the Constitution is to be enacted. Parliament held the position that there is no mandatory requirement for Parliament to enact any specific or general law governing tribunals in Kenya. As such, the Amended Petition did not disclose any violation of the Constitution and ought to be dismissed. Issues i. The nature of the local tribunals under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution. ii. Whether the appointment and removal of members of the local Tribunals under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution by the Executive violate the principle of separation of powers and violates the right to fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution. iii. Whether the local tribunals under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution should be transited to the Judiciary. Held 1. The local Tribunals created under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution are subordinate Courts in Kenya. These local tribunals possess the following qualities: - a. They are Courts of law b. T hey are subordinate to the superior Courts c. They are not advisory in nature d. They are not administrative Tribunals e. They are not pre sided over by or include a Judge of the Superior Courts in their membership f. They are formed under an Act of Parliament. 2. The following tribunals do not qualify as local tribunals that are subordinate courts: a. The Tribunals formed under the Constitution b. All administrative and advisory tribunals c. All tribunals whose membership includes a Judge of the Superior Courts d. All other informal tribunals not formed under the Constitution or any Act of Parliament. 3. The appointment and removal of members of the local tribunals created under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution by the Executive violates the principle of separation of powers, contravenes the right to fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution and infringes on the independence of the Judiciary. 4. The local tribunals under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution must be transited to the Judiciary and the appointment and removal of their members be undertaken by the Judicial Service Commission. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 5. Forthwith, any new appointment or removal of a member of any of the Tribunals under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution must be undertaken by the Judicial Service Commission. Petition partly allowed. Parliament and the Attorney General directed to take proactive steps within their respective dockets towards propagating the Tribunals Bill with a view of transiting the local tribunals under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution to the Judiciary, and to file affidavits within 6 months of the judgment detailing the steps taken. Note: An appeal against this decision was pending at the time of this report. 3.4 Employment and Labour Relations Court 3.4.1 Whether the salaries and allowances of Commissioners of Independent Commissions can be withheld in situations of illness Shadrack Mutia Muiu v National Police Service Commission & 2 Others, Petition No. 115 of 2018 [2020] eKLR, Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, July 2, 2020 Brief facts The petitioner was appointed a Commissioner at the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) for a term of six years beginning in October 2012. While on a European benchmarking tour in February 2013, he fell ill and was hospitalized for a number of days. He then flew back to Kenya and was hospitalized for two weeks and put on medication. He did not report back to work until his tenure as a commissioner ended. His salary and allowances were withheld starting from March 2014. The petitioner claimed that the withholding of his salary and allowances was discriminatory and a violation of his rights to fair labour practices. He sought various reliefs from the court including an order of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay him his unpaid salary which amounted to KSh. 35,145,000. In opposing the petition, NPSC and the Attorney General admitted that as a result of his long absence and after seeking his doctor’s comprehensive report in vain, the Commission resolved that the Petitioner be put on sick leave in accordance with the prevailing Government Rules and staff regulations as follows; from 1.7.2013 to 30.9.2013 the Petitioner be on full salary, from 1.10.2013 to 31.12.2013 on half salary and on 1.1.2014 to 30.6.2014 on nil salary. An attempt was made to have the petitioner appear before a Medical Board convened by the Director of Medical Services. This attempt, however, failed because he could not be reached. In addition, in September 2015, a Petition was presented to the National Assembly on behalf of Juhudi Community seeking that the Assembly does recommend the Petitioner’s removal on grounds of misconduct and incapacity to perform functions of office and it was granted. However, the President never appointed a tribunal in accordance with Article 251 (5) of the Constitution to investigate the matter, until the petitioner’s term lapsed. Issues i. Whether the Code of Regulations for Civil Servants and Section 30 of the Employment Act, which had provisions on how the pay of an employee on sick leave would be handled, were applicable to a member of an independent commission established under the Constitution. ii. What was the procedure applicable to the removal of a member of an independent commission from office under the Constitution? iii. Whether the Constitution contemplated the withholding of salary and allowances as a mode of dealing with an illness that affected the ability of a member of an independent commission to perform his duties. iv. What was the effect of failure to plead alleged violations of fundamental rights and freedoms with a reasonable degree of precision? Held 1. The Code of Regulations for Civil Servants was applicable to Civil Servants who were defined as employees of the Public Service Commission of Kenya deployed in Ministries/Departments but not to independent commissions. The application of the code to the petitioner in order to stop the release of his salary and allowances was unlawful as it violated his right to protection from unfair disciplinary action as guaranteed by Article 236(b) of the Constitution. 2. The stoppage of the salary was done while the petitioner was still in office. This was contrary to Article 250(8) of the Constitution which protected his remuneration. 3. The petitioner’s employment contract had a constitutional underpinning as the terms of his appointment, remuneration and removal were expressly provided for under Articles 250 and 251 of the Constitution. The Constitution provided for the removal from office of a sick commissioner under Article 251 of the Constitution but it did not contemplate the suspension of the remuneration of a commissioner. 4. The petitioner served his entire 6 years as the appointing authority waived the right to remove him from office on grounds of physical or mental incapacity to perform the functions of his office. Consequently, the stoppage of the petitioner’s salary and allowances had no legal basis. 5. Section 30 of the Employment Act could not justify the stoppage of the petitioner’s salary and benefits as his contract of service was firmly grounded on express provisions of the Constitution. Petition allowed. An order of certiorari was issued to quash the 1 st respondent’s decision to withhold and/or stop the petitioner’s salary and benefits. An order of mandamus was granted to compel the respondents to pay the petitioner KSh. 35,145,000 being the amount of his salary withheld from March 1, 2014 to October 2, 2018 when his term of office lapsed. 3.4.2 Role of the Chief Justice vis-à-vis the Judicial Service Commission in the disciplinary process for Judicial Officers Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association v Judicial Service Commission & 2 Others, Petition 150 of 2019 [2020] eKLR, Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, August 12, 2020 Brief facts The petitioner sought a declaration that paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Third Schedule to the Judicial Service Act were unconstitutional for delegating to the Chief Justice powers that were exclusively vested on the Judicial Service Commission in the Constitution. These provisions provided for delegation to the Chief Justice of the JSC’s power to interdict, suspend and to issue a reprimand to Judicial Officers and staff. The petitioner also claimed that the provisions failed to set out the limited circumstances under which the Chief Justice could exercise this delegated power and the circumstances under which interdiction or suspension could be exercised and the validity period for interdiction for affected Judicial Officers. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6246 6246 The petitioner further averred that the provisions failed to prescribe the conduct or misbehaviour that qualified for interdiction or suspension of remuneration upon interdiction or suspension. Thus, the petitioner claimed that its members were susceptible to unfair and unjust treatment from the Chief Justice. The petitioner contended that the impugned provisions of the schedule were inconsistent with the substantive Act and thus urged the court to find that they were void to the extent of their inconsistency. Issues i. What was the distinctive role of the Chief Justice vis a vis the Judicial Service Commission regarding the disciplinary process of Judicial Officers? ii. Whether interdicting and suspending Judicial Officers was part of the Chief Justice’s administrative functions. iii. Whether the suspension or interdiction of a judicial officer for an indefinite period on a reduced income amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Held 1. The Chief Justice was the Chief Executive Officer of the Judiciary and therefore supervised the Judges, Judicial Officers and staff. He/She therefore exercised general direction and control over the Judiciary. 2. The Regulations were clear that the role of the Chief Justice was to establish if there was a prima facie case to warrant the reference of a disciplinary case to the JSC. The role of the Chief Justice thereafter was to interdict or suspend an officer and then refer the matter to JSC for hearing. 3. In the sense in which interdictions and suspensions were applied in paragraphs 16 and 17, they were not punishments but administrative functions intended to remove the employee from the workplace while proceedings that could lead to the dismissal of the officer were being taken. Since the assignment of duties was an administrative function of the Chief Justice, the removal of a judicial officer from performing those duties was also a function of the Chief Justice as part of the administrative duties. 4. Under paragraphs 16(1), 17(1) and (2) of the Regulations, the only role that the Chief Justice performed under those paragraphs was to remove the officer from exercising the powers of the office where proceedings had been commenced that could lead to the removal of the officer. There was separation of roles between the Chief Justice and JSC, the former being to remove from performing the functions of the office and the latter being to hear and determine the disciplinary case. There was no disciplinary role in paragraphs 16(1), 17(1) and (2). 5. Since during interdiction and suspension an employee was not remunerated as they were in limbo over whether or not they had a job, it would amount to inhuman treatment to subject them to the situation indefinitely. 6. Where an officer was placed on interdiction or suspension, the officer was prejudiced by reduction of income and removal from performing the functions of the office and in a way constituted punishment. It was therefore necessary to be specific on the duration of the suspension to create certainty so that there was accountability, and that interdiction or suspension were not imposed in a manner that inflicted punishment on the officer. Petition partly allowed with no order for costs. 3.4.3 Whether a State corporation can alter the statutory minimum requirements for appointment of a CEO as outlined in the Mwongonzo Code Republic v Communications Authority of Kenya Ex parte Information Communication Technology Association of Kenya (ICTAK), Judicial Review Application No. 21 of 2020 [2021] eKLR, Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, April 9, 2021 Brief facts Following the lapse of the contract for the immediate past Director General of the respondent, the Communications Authority of Kenya Board advertised for the position in the local daily newspapers on May 22, 2020 specifying the qualifications, duties and conditions applicable for the position. The ex-parte applicant was unhappy with the advertisement, claiming that the advert introduced qualifications that were not contained in the law, that is, Mwongozo Code of Governance for State Corporations ( Mwongozo), and that the alteration locked out its members and other members of the public who would otherwise be qualified to apply for the position and was, thus, discriminatory. The ex-parte applicant further complained that the timeframe for closing of the advertisement was less than the 21 days provided by the law. The ex- parte applicant, through its advocates, wrote a letter to the respondent demanding the immediate revocation and/or cancellation and/or withdrawal of the vacancy notice. In its response, the respondent contended that the Mwongozo only prescribed the minimum requirements for appointment of a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and that Boards of State corporations had latitude to make additional requirements for the appointment of a CEO. Issues I What were the specifications for appointment of Chief Executive Officers of State corporations? ii. Whether a State corporation had powers to alter the statutory minimum requirements for appointment of a state officer. iii. Whether the Public Service Human Resource and Policies Manual could supersede the provisions of Mwongozo. Held 1. Since the Kenya Information and Communications Act did not set out the qualifications for the Director General of the respondent, the qualifications set out in the Mwongozo applied. 2. The respondent enhanced the requirements for the position of Director General thus locking out persons, including the ex-parte applicant’s members who were qualified under the statutory requirements. The respondent had no such powers to alter the minimum requirements for appointment and therefore acted ultra vires. 3. By altering the requirements for the position of the Director General, the respondent also violated the provisions of Article 10(2)(b) of the Constitution which provided for observance of human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the marginalised. Persons who were qualified under Mwongozo were discriminated against by the enhancement of the minimum requirements which locked them out. Notice of Motion allowed with costs. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 3.5 Environment and Land Court 3.5.1 Whether lands claimed to be ancestral lands dispossessed during colonial era would be returned to original native occupants or their descendants Henry Wambega & 733 others v Attorney General & 9 Others, Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2018 [2020] eKLR, Environment and Land Court at Mombasa, October 22, 2020 Brief facts The petitioners claimed that they, or their forefathers, were the original inhabitants of various parcels of land measuring over 800 acres (suit lands) owned by the 2 nd – 7 th and 9 th respondents and asserted a right to be settled therein. They claimed that they, or their forefathers, were violently evicted from the suit lands. They pleaded that about the year 1960 to the year 1962, right through the year 1970, there were forced evictions of the occupants in the properties. It was averred that the evictions were forceful, violent, and with no basic regard to human rights, and that the property and crops of the occupants, including cash crops, mango and coconut trees, and houses, were utterly destroyed, with some community members being imprisoned in Malindi Prison. They also pleaded that being descendants of the original occupiers of the suit lands, their right to property had crystallised through the doctrine of ancestral domain or alternatively, through an implied inter-generational trust. They stated that their problems stemmed from the issuance of titles to the then registered owners without due regard to their occupation. They thus sought, among others, a declaration that the suit lands were ancestral lands and that they were entitled to have the suit lands declared trust land by virtue of the history of that land. The respondents opposed the petition with the National Land Commission (NLC) arguing that the issues raised in the petition were of the nature of historical land injustice hence the appropriate avenue for seeking redress was by lodging a claim of historical injustice with the NLC for admission and subsequent investigation. Issues i. Whether the Environment and Land Court had jurisdiction to hear claims of historical land injustices. ii. What was the meaning and basis of the ancestral domain concept and whether it was applicable in Kenya. iii. Whether lands claimed to be ancestral lands dispossessed during colonial era would be returned to original native occupants or their descendants. iv. What were the solutions to historical land injustices in Kenya? Held 1. The Environment and Land Court had jurisdiction to hear claims based on historical land injustices. However, just because a court was vested with jurisdiction did not mean that in all cases, it would proceed to exercise that jurisdiction, especially where there was another body that also had capacity to hear that dispute. Depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the court could defer jurisdiction to another body, or decline to take up the matter altogether. 2. In accordance with Article 67 (2) (e) of the Constitution and Section 15 of the National Land Commission Act, the NLC had wide jurisdiction on historical land injustices. When it came to the choice of filing a claim before the NLC or before the ELC, one needed to make an assessment of what task was required. 3. There was no evidence that any of the forefathers of the petitioners ever resided on the suit land. One could not tell with precision and finality, which forefather of which petitioner resided in which land, and what sort of occupation such person had. Some of the petitioners appeared to have roots in Kwale and not within the site of the disputed lands. There was a claim of dispossession, but absolutely no evidence of who was dispossessed, by whom, and when exactly that occurred. 4. The petitioners did not give the Court any generational tree to identify their ancestry and demonstrate that it was actually their forefathers who were occupying the suit lands. There was no evidence that any of the claims of torture occurred; neither was there any evidence of imprisonment. It was impossible to hold that any of the events that were claimed by the petitioners actually occurred. 5. The ancestral domain claim would mean that a generation had a historical right to own land that was previously in the hands of their forefathers. It had some support in some jurisdictions, especially those with a minority population that was marginalized owing to colonialism or occupation by foreigners. Australia for instance enacted the Native Title Act, 1993, so as to inter alia appreciate that Australia was not terra nullius at the advent of European occupation and to make amends to the native population that was dispossessed of land. 6. Land issues were complex and were unique to each country. It followed that each country enacted laws that suited its circumstances. We could not impose what had been held in one jurisdiction into the country for Kenya’s circumstances could be different. Australia had a large population of European origin with the native Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander people representing only 3.3% of the population.The situation in Kenya was radically different, with the native inhabitants being the overwhelming majority. 7. There was no backing in the Constitution or in any law that would entitle the petitioners to the lands that were privately held by the 2 nd - 7 th and 9 th respondents, even assuming that the lands were originally settled by the forefathers of the petitioners. There was no law that said that a person had to be settled in land that was previously owned by his/her forefather, irrespective of whether that land was privately owned. There was power to recommend restitution or compensation, if deemed appropriate, when dealing with historical injustices, but that was not to be construed to mean that a person had a right to be settled in land that belonged to his/her forefather who was dispossessed from it. 8. There had not been a violation of the petitioners’ constitutional rights or any violation of the international instruments that the petitioners had mentioned. Petition dismissed with costs payable jointly and/or severally by the petitioners. 3.5.2 Rules and guidelines governing sustainable harvesting of sand John Muthui & 19 others v County Government of Kitui & 7 Others, ELC Petition No. E06 of 2020 [2020] eKLR, Environment and Land Court at Machakos, November 27, 2020 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6248 6248 Brief facts The petitioners filed an application seeking conservatory orders to restrain the respondents from licensing or allowing exploitation of resources, more particularly sand harvesting from a river known as Tiva River (the river) until hearing and determination of the petition. They brought the suit on their own behalf and on behalf of the residents of Kitui County and beyond, who in one way or the other depended on, used and derived benefits from the river. They argued that the 1 st to 6 th respondents had permitted, allowed, licensed and let the 7 th and 8 th respondents and other persons under the umbrella of the 8 th respondent to harvest sand from the river without following the regulations laid down by the 4 th respondent for such activities and that as a result, the environment in and around the river had been degraded causing the river to dry up and as a consequence, put the lives of the petitioners and those of their future generations into uncertainty. In opposing, the 1 st and 2 nd respondents’ averred, among others, that the petition and the application were brought prematurely before the Court; that the petition ought to have been filed in the National Environment Tribunal (NET); that the petitioners had no capacity to institute the suit; that the harvesting and excavation of sand from the river was controlled; that there were in place strict laws governing and regulating sustainable use of the said resource; and that the harvesting of sand by the 7 th and 8 th respondents was limited to internal use within the County Government of Kitui and local consumption only and that the Constitution allowed for sustainable exploitation of natural resource. Issues i. Whether ELC had unlimited jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to land and the environment. ii. Whether ELC had jurisdiction to resolve a dispute alleging infringement of the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. iii. What principles guided courts when resolving environmental disputes? iv. Which rules and guidelines governed sustainable sand harvesting? v. Whether failure to comply with the National Sand Harvesting Guidelines implied that sand harvesting was not being carried out in a sustainable manner. Held 1. The petitioners were not appealing against the decision of the National Environment Management Authority (4 th respondent) either in issuing a licence or otherwise in respect of the harvesting of sand from the river by the respondents. Also, in view of the prayers sought in the petition, which were confined to the alleged infringement of the petitioners’ rights, NET did not have the requisite jurisdiction to deal with the petition. ELC had the jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised in the petition and the application. 2. In the absence of a Technical Sand Harvesting Committee (TSHC) as required under the Guidelines, and in the absence of any evidence to show compliance with all the Guidelines, or a law passed by the 3 rd respondent to regulate sand harvesting, the court found that the harvesting of sand in the river was not, prima facie, being exploited and utilized in a sustainable manner, contrary to the provision of Article 69 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Although the respondents argued that the harvesting of the sand from the river was for the development of the county, and that the local community had immensely benefited from the said harvest, they ought to be aware that environmental considerations had to be at the center stage of all developments. 3. Although the respondents argued that they had been relying on an environmental impact assessment report (report) that was prepared by the th and 8 th respondents, the report was never submitted to the 4 th respondent for approval pursuant to the provisions of sections 58 of Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA). According to the second schedule of EMCA, the report was supposed to be submitted to the 4 th respondent for all activities involving sand harvesting, where after, a license was to be issued. The respondents had not complied with the law. Where the procedures for the protection of the environment were not followed, then an assumption would be drawn that the right to a clean and healthy environment was under threat. 4. The respondents had the responsibility of abiding by the Guidelines and EMCA, and enacting a law or regulations to ensure that there was sustainable exploitation of sand from the river. 5. The respondents had failed, prima facie, to comply with the laws and guidelines pertaining to harvesting of sand from the river. The 3 rd respondent had also failed to pass laws and regulations which would criminalize the exploitation of sand from the river in an unsustainable manner. That being so, the petitioners had established a prima facie case with chances of success. Application allowed. 3.5.3 Constitutionality of Section 9(2)(a) of the Land Control Board Act which had not been gazetted as repealed by the Attorney General African Cotton Industries Limited v Rural Development Services Limited, ELC No. 25 of 2017 [2021] eKLR, Environment and Land Court at Muranga, February 10, 2021 Brief facts The matter concerned a parcel of land (suit land) belonging to the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that it entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land with the defendant and paid 10per cent of the purchase as deposit. Thereafter the defendant refused, neglected and/or failed to complete the sale of the suit land. Pleading, inter alia, constructive trust and breach of the right to property and agreement of sale, the plaintiff sought the Court to issue an order of specific performance, among other reliefs. On its part, the defendant denied the claim in its entirety and maintained that its director lacked the requisite mental capacity to bind the defendant to the agreement. It also invoked duress and absence of Land Control Board Consent as factors vitiating the agreement. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the Land Control Board Act had been repealed and therefore did not apply to the transaction. At the repeal of the land laws, the Land Control Board Act was not included in the gazette repealed Acts. The Court of Appeal in Willy Kimutai Kitilit v Michael Kibet (2018) eKLR had appreciated that the Act was still in existence. In Basil Criticos v Attorney General and 8 others (2013) eKLR the Court had directed the Attorney General to gazette the repeal of the Act. There was no evidence that that had been done. Therefore, to the extent that the Land Control Board Act had not been repealed, it meant that the Statute was still part of the laws of Kenya. The Court of Appeal had pronounced that some provisions of the Statute had been rendered irrelevant and opined that the Act ought to be read in conformity with the Constitution of Kenya. Issue i. Whether section 9(2)(a) of the Land Control Board Act was unconstitutional. Held 1. No evidence had been led to prove otherwise than that the Land Control Board Act was still in force. As such, section 9(2)(a) of the Land Control Board Act could not be declared unconstitutional. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Suit partly allowed; costs were payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on a higher scale for one counsel. Notable Decisions from the Subordinate Courts 3.6 Magistrates Courts 3.6.1 Rights of parties to remarry after the dissolution of their marriage under Islamic law. In the matter of the Advisory Opinion of JIA, KMC 14 of 2020, Kadhis Court at Kisumu, September 8, 2020 Brief facts The marriage of the applicant herein to his wife, DAE was dissolved by consent between the parties on 18 th April 2019 before the Deputy Chief Kadhi Hon. Sukyan Hassan Omar of Kadhis Court at Upper Hill, Nairobi in Divorce Case No. 268 B of 2018. There were also other orders pertaining to the maintenance of the two issues of the marriage. The Deputy Chief Kadhi had ordered that the marriage be dissolved and the same be registered. The Applicant thereafter got in talking terms with his former wife, and agreed to come back together as husband and wife. The problem however was that the wife’s walii (guardian) was adamant that the two could not remarry since, according to him, the court’s order on the dissolution of marriage was absolute-what was known in fiqh parlance as baynunah kubra. The applicant then filed this application seeking the court’s interpretation of the orders dissolving his marriage, and declaratory orders as to whether the law allowed them to remarry. Issues i. Whether the parties’ mutual consent to divorce was enough to end the marriage and the courts work was only to approve of their consent or whether their consent notwithstanding, the court was still going to dissolve the marriage based on its discretionary powers. ii. When judicial dissolution of marriage occurred, was it considered like revocable talaq or irrevocable talaq and if it was considered as irrevocable, was it a minor or a major irrevocability? ii. How did the dissolution affect re-marriage between the parties? Held 1. There was a difference between Talaq (divorce) and Faskh (dissolution of marriage). Talaq pronouncement originated from the husband, and could be counted as one, or two and three. Faskh was from the Hakamain (Arbitrators) or the Kadhi (Judge) and could be numbered. When the Qur’an talked about major irrevocability, it said so with reference to the three Talaqs and not with reference to Khul’ or Faskh. 2. Raj’ah (return to the marital fold) was in two ways: that which followed talaq and that which followed faskh. Raj’ah in the first and second talaq should be within the stipulated eddah period, or else the divorce became that of minor irrevocability. Raj’ah in Khul’ or faskh did not happen until a new marriage contract, with a new mahr was entered into. 3. Whilst quoting Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya, the court noted that: spouses had no right to drop the legal requirement for raj’ah; that the husband had no right to pronounce an irrevocable divorce; and in the same way, the spouses had no right to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent without payment of consideration. The court held that for this particular case, there was no dissolution of marriage by mutual consent since no consideration was paid. 4. It was the court which dissolved the marriage herein owing to the facts presented by the parties before it, the Kadhi exercised his discretion judiciously, and mutual consent to divorce was not the primary fact considered in dissolving the marriage. 5. The court quoted the Kuwaiti Fiqh Encyclopedia and Fatawa of ibn Bāz where it was stated thus: dissolution of marriage for reasons of constant disputing between spouses is regarded as equivalent to irrevocable talaq according to majority of jurists; and that if a judge dissolves the contract of marriage for reasons such as lack of maintenance or for other reasons calling for dissolution, then the dissolution would be regarded as a minor irrevocable dissolution (baynuunah sughraa), and the wife could return to the husband and the husband could return to the wife through a new marriage contract and a new mahr even if it is within her eddah period. 6. The Qur’an, in the ordinary revocable divorces prioritized the return of husbands as against a new marriage by other men to their divorced wives during the eddah period. 7. The dissolution of the marriage herein was a judicial dissolution and valid as a minor irrevocable dissolution (baynuunah sughraa). This meant that the two were free to enter into a new marriage contract with a new mahr agreement between them. 3.7 Tribunals 3.7.1 Consent in HIV testing and damages for conducting HIV test and disclosing results to 3 rd parties without informed consent R.A.O Vs Mediheal Group of Hospitals & 2 Others, HAT Nbi Cause No. 030 of 2019, HIV & AIDS Tribunal at Nairobi, November 27, 2020 Brief facts The Claimant was employed by the Mediheal Group of Hospitals (the 1 st Respondent) to work in the restaurant at the Mediheal Hospital Eastleigh (2 nd Respondent). She fell ill and was admitted at the 2 nd Respondent’s facility on or about 25 th May 2019. Upon admission to the hospital, a blood sample was drawn from her for tests, but she was not informed what tests were to be conducted. She was merely informed that further investigations would be required, and she presumed that she had malaria. The 3 rd Respondent, a doctor at the hospital, conducted a series of tests on the sample. The Claimant alleged that the hospital conducted a HIV test without her consent, and that no pre-test nor post-test counselling was done. She claimed further that the 3 rd Respondent disclosed the results of the tests to her in the presence of other patients who were with her in the ward. She testified that the 3 rd Respondent came into the ward with a nurse aid following closely behind, walked over to the window and loudly declared that the claimant ought to be on antiretroviral treatment. There were other patients in the ward who overheard the comment. The Claimant also testified that the 3 rd respondent went on to inform other parties of the claimant’s status, including her supervisor, which resulted in the claimant being reassigned to laundry duty. Further, word got round about the claimant’s status and her colleagues found out soon thereafter. Further evidence showed that following her test results, the management directed that other staff be tested for HIV, allegedly for purposes of confirming whether the Claimant had a fake Food Handling Certificate or whether hers was an isolated incident. As a result of the actions by the respondents, the Claimant suffered physically, emotionally and psychologically. The respondents denied that the 3 rd Respondent conducted tests on the Claimant including the HIV test without her knowledge or consent. They argued that the Claimant had consented by appending her signature on the admission/consent form. However, the Consent Form produced in evidence did not specifically indicate consent to HIV testing. They further stated that the Claimant’s damages, if any, were caused or contributed to 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6250 6250 by her negligence or by others that the respondents had no control over. They denied any liability for breach of the provisions of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act (HAPCA). The Respondents also filed a counterclaim for KSh33,067 in hospital bills which reportedly remained unpaid as at the time of the suit as well as damages for bad publicity. Issues i. Whether the 3 rd Respondent obtained the prior informed consent of the Claimant before testing her for HIV ii. Whether the Respondents conducted the mandatory pre and post HIV test counselling therapy iii. Whether the Respondents disclosed the Claimant’s HIV results to a third party iv. What remedies the Claimant was entitled to v. What remedies the Respondents were entitled to in their counterclaim. Held 1. Following the decision in CNM –vs- Karen Hospital Ltd, HAT No. 008 of 2015 where informed consent was defined as “consent given with the full knowledge of the risks involved, probable consequences and the range of alternatives available,” the Tribunal noted that there was a big difference between consent and informed consent, and that a person who had given consent to HIV testing would nevertheless sue on the ground that he did not give informed consent. 2. The Respondents did not obtain informed consent from the Claimant prior to conducting an HIV test on her. 3. Section 17 (1) of HAPCA which provided that every testing centre should provide pre-test and post-test counselling to a person undergoing an HIV test and any other person likely to be affected by the results of such test was couched in mandatory terms. 4. There was no proof that pre-test and post-test counselling was done on the claimant. 5. There was wrongful and unlawful disclosure of the claimant’s status without her consent, contrary to the provisions of the Act. 6. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 26 of HAPCA was, primarily, to hear and determine complaints arising out of the breach of the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim and could only advise the respondents to seek redress in a court of competent jurisdiction. Judgement entered in favor of the claimant against the Respondents jointly and severally in the sum of KSh900,000 broken down as follows: a. Conducting an HIV test on the Claimant without her informed consent – KSh250,000 b. Failure to conduct the mandatory pre-test and post-test counselling therapy on the Claimant - KSh250,000 c. Disclosure of the Claimant’s HIV status to 3rd parties without her consent – KSh250,000 d. The emotional and psychological distress as a result of the stigma – KSh150,000 e. The respondents’ counterclaim was dismissed. NB. The Claimant lodged an appeal at the High Court challenging the quantum of damages. In a decision delivered on 24 th June 2021, the High Court (Civil Appeal No. E377 of 2020) increased the damages to KSh. 2 million broken down as follows: a. Conducting an HIV test on the Claimant without her informed consent – KSh400,000 b. Failure to conduct the mandatory pre-test and post-test counselling therapy on the Claimant - KSh250,000 c. Disclosure of the Claimant’s HIV status to 3rd parties without her consent – KSh500,000 d. The emotional and psychological distress as a result of the stigma brought about by a, b and c – KSh850,000 3.7.2 Jurisdiction of the Legal Education Appeals Tribunal to grant a stay of proceedings awaiting the outcome of an intended appeal on a decision that did not arise from the tribunal John Kibegwa & 6 Others v. KSL & CLE, LEAT Consolidated Appeals 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 And 15 All of 2021, Legal Education Appeals Tribunal at Nairobi, June 16, 2021 Brief facts John Kibegwa and others (the Appellants) had approached the Legal Education Appeals Tribunal with different appeals against decisions of the Kenya School of Law and the Council of Legal Education regarding their admission to KSL. While their appeals were pending, KSL (the Applicant) lodged before the Tribunal an Application under Certificate of Urgency praying for a stay of the Tribunal’s proceedings pending the hearing and determination of an appeal that KSL intended to lodge before the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of the High Court in Consolidated Petitions No’s 7, 8, 13, 20 and 21 of 2020. KSL had already filed Civil Applications No’s E417 of 2020 and E002 of 2021 where the Court of Appeal had issued a stay against the High Court decision pending the determination of the intended appeal. The issues to be determined by the Court of Appeal in the intended Appeal were similar in nature to the appeals presented before the Tribunal. KSL argued that if the proceedings had not been stayed and the appeals before the Tribunal succeeded, the School would be obliged to admit students in a similar category as those affected by the stay granted by the Court of Appeal, which would occasion an injustice and unfair treatment. The School also argued that there would be a peril of embarrassment of contradicting determinations between the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. Issues for Determination i. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant the stay. Held 1. Based on its establishing juridical regime, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant stay of proceedings awaiting a determination of an intended appeal which did not arise from its order or decree. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 2. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction on matters of stay was only anticipated in instances when an appeal had been lodged against its decision to the High Court under section 38 (2) of the Legal Education Act, no. 27 of 2012. 3. The appellants were not parties to the appeal in the Court of Appeal and it would be a clear breach of their right to be heard which was well postulated in Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya to have them be bound by an order of the Court of Appeal of which they were not parties to and had no control over the proceedings thereto. Application dismissed. Appeal to proceed before the Tribunal. 3.7.3 Procedure for lodging appeals against decisions of the Managing Director of KIPI, and whether business methods are patentable John Kamonjo Mwaura v. Kenya Industrial Property Institute & Another, IPT Appeal No. 21 Of 2018, In The Industrial Property Tribunal at Nairobi, July 1, 2020 Brief facts The appellant challenged the final decision of the examiner at KIPI, the 1 st Respondent, who rejected his application for grant of a patent in respect of an invention titled “A system and a computer- implemented method for short-term advanced – credit - finance assurance: for providing short – term advance credit financing; and for managing and controlling: lending, accounts and transactions spending thereupon.’’ The system would enable mobile operators to automatically lend or advance to a subscriber some credit to enable him or her to continue talking on phone upon the latter’s exhaustion of his or her prepaid credit. Following the initial rejection of the patent application as disclosing non-patentable subject matter, the examiner then invited the appellant to submit observations and where applicable to amend the application within 60 days of the invitation. Consequently, the appellant made adjustments and made responses to the initial report then forwarded the same to the 2 nd respondent. This amended report contained arguments and counter arguments to the reasons given by the examiner for the initial rejection of his patent application. The applicant maintained that the application for grant of patent was merited and he requested for setting aside of the initial rejection and that his application be reconsidered based on the amended claims. The examiner was not persuaded by the appellant’s contentions and after conducting a substantive examination based on the amended claims and the appellant’s comments and submissions issued a final substantive report rejecting the patent application principally on the ground of non- patentability of subject matter and additionally for lack of inventive step and ambiguity of the amended patent claims. The appellant was dissatisfied with the final rejection of his patent application and upon notification instituted an appeal against the whole decision. When the matter came up before the Tribunal for hearing of the applications for joinder by the two interested parties, the appellant was advised that the appeal that he had filed before the Tribunal did not accord with the provisions of the Industrial Property Act and the Industrial Property Tribunal Rules 2002 relating to institution of appeals from a decision of the Managing Director rejecting an application for grant of a patent, in particular Section 47 and Rule 5(3) (e). The Appellant filed it as a petition describing himself as a petitioner and lodged a notice of appeal in form IPT 2 under section 71 IPA, Rules 5 (3) (b) Industrial Property Tribunal Rules 2002. He also filed a plaint simultaneously with the notice of appeal and declined to amend his documents as directed contending that he had brought the appeal in the right frame provided in the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. Issues i. Whether the appellant followed the right procedure in instituting the appeal before the Tribunal. ii. Whether the Appellant’s application for grant of patent disclosed a business method which was not a proper subject of protection as an intention under Section (21) (3) (b) and whether the examiner was right to reject the appellant’s patent application on that basis. iii. Whether the Appellant’s amendments were ambiguous and went beyond proper material for inclusion in amendments of claims in accordance with the law. Held 1. Procedures were very critical as they ensured the orderly conduct of legal proceedings and wre therefore an indispensable component in ensuring that the wheels of justice ran smoothly. Therefore, they were not to be disregarded or ignored and any party who deliberately failed to play by the established rules of procedure did a disservice to the efficient administration of justice. 2. The procedure adopted by the appellant in instituting the appeal was improper. The appeal herein was against the decision of the Managing Director under Section 47 of the Act. As such, it was improper for the Appellant to institute it by way of a Petition and Notice of Appeal in Form IPT 2 which was only to be used to institute an appeal under Section 71 of the Act in terms of Rule 5 (3) (b) of the Rules. 3. The Industrial Property Tribunal was a creation of the Industrial Property Act and thus its proceedings were governed by provisions in the IP Act and the IPT Rules 2002. Since there was no incorporation of the Civil Procedure Act or Rules by reference in either the IP Act or the IPT Rules, it was improper and inappropriate to invoke the Civil Procedure Act or Rules in appeal proceedings before the Tribunal. 4. Section 21(3)(b) expressly excluded schemes, rules or methods for doing business from patenting. The Appellant’s application for grant of patent disclosed a business method which was not a proper subject of protection as an invention under Section (21) (3) (b). 5. There was no technical feature in working the system that was attributable to the appellant since the telecommunication platform to be used to operate the appellant’s method was that of the mobile operator. 6. Even where an international patent application was made under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the national office of any designated country had the final say on whether to refuse or grant registration on the basis of that country’s national patent laws, the only rider being the observance of the principle of national treatment. 7. The appellant’s patent application consisted of non-patentable subject matter. Upon its own independent examination of both the claims and the amended patent claims, the Tribunal was satisfied that they did not disclose any inventive step as contemplated by section 24 of the Act as they were anticipated by prior art in both Kenya and abroad. 8. Both the initial claims and the amended claims could have benefited from a professional touch, for drafting of patent claims certainly required technical expertise. The ambiguity was not only in the explanations to the amendments as contended by the appellants but also in the claims amendments replacement sheets. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6252 6252 9. The need for conciseness and clarity of patent claims could not be over emphasized as such demarcated the monopoly to be protected by patent and warns 3 rd parties of the area beyond which they could not venture. The appeal would be dismissed for those additional reasons as well. Appeal dismissed. 3.8 Sections of the Law Declared Unconstitutional during the FY 2020/2021 The Courts’ through their judicial pronouncements evaluate the constitutionality, propriety, effectiveness and utility of statutory legislation as well as government administrative actions. The table below enumerates the sections of the law that were found to be unconstitutional during the FY 2020/21. S/NO. Case Citation Section of the Law declared Unconstitutional Article of the Constitution contravened Reason for Declaration Date of decision 1 Senate of the Republic of Kenya & 4 others v. The Speaker of the National Assembly & Another, The Attorney General & 7 others (Interested Parties), Petition No. 284 and 353 of 2019 (consolidate) (2020) eKLR Kenya Medical Supplies Authority Act- Amendments to Section 4 by the Health Laws (Amendment)Act, No. of 5 of 2019 Article 110(3) The impugned amendments to the Act were carried out by the National Assembly without reference to the Senate as was required under Article 10(3) of the Constitution October 29, 2020 2 Cyprian Andama v Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others; Article 19 East Africa (Interested Party) Petition No. 3 of 2019 [2021] eKLR Penal Code- Section 66 Articles 33, 35 and 50(2)(a) The Section unjustifiably suppressed freedom of expression, denied citizens the right to receive and impart information, and it denied the accused person the right to a fair trial. May 13, 2021 3 Steve Isaac Kawai & 2 others v Council of Legal Education & 2 others Petition 393 of 2018 [2021] eKLR Advocates Act- Section 12(a) Article 127 The Section was discriminatory in as much as it failed to include citizens of South Sudan as persons who could qualify for admission to the Roll of Advocates May 20, 2021 CHAPTER 4—ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE JUDICIARY 4.0 Introduction The Judiciary is not only accountable to the public for its activities and outputs but has also put in place internal accountability mechanisms that provide clear parameters for service delivery for all employees. There are laid down sanctions for those who fail to adhere to set expectations as well as rewards for those who excel. These accountability mechanisms are done through various platforms including the following: Ombudsman Ofice “Sikio la mahakama (the listening ear of the Judiciary)”: The office, headed by the Deputy Chief Justice as the Ombudsman and is an accelerated grievance handling office that receives and resolves complaints from the public Audit and Risk Management Directorate : It carries out internal auditing services to provide objective assurance on management of risks in Judiciary’s operations. The Directorate was established in the Judiciary in 2013 and its capacity continues to be enhanced. Performance Management and Measurement System: This system primarily focuses on performance of courts and administrative units through a process that entails target setting, performance monitoring, performance evaluation, performance reporting and administration of rewards. The key tool used is Performance Management and Measurement understandings (PMMU). State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice Report (SOJAR):This is a statutory report provided for under section 5(2) (b) of the Judicial Service Act. Financial Reporting and Compliance; the PFM Act Section 68 (2) (k) requires that the accounting officer prepares annual financial statements within three months after the end of the financial year, and submit them to the Controller of Budget and the Auditor-General for audit. Public Hearings in Budget Preparation process: Judiciary offers members of the public and actors in the justice chain an opportunity to contribute to the budget making process. The inputs consequently enrich the Judiciary’s budget proposal in line with its service delivery plans. 4.1 Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman As the unit in the Chief Justice’s office tasked with ensuring that administrative justice is enforced in the institution, the office put in place structures and mechanisms during the COVID-19 pandemic period.to facilitate effective complaint handling mechanisms and other services. The Judiciary Ombudsman receives and processes complaints and compliments from members of the public on the institution and its employees. For all complaints against judges and personnel from the public, an in-depth investigation is conducted. If culpable, the employee is subsequently subjected to disciplinary action in accordance with established processes. Despite the operating challenges that were brought about by the restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the office recorded an increase in the total number of complaints lodged. While court operations were frequently scaled down, and remote working encouraged to curb further spread, the office put in place mechanisms to ensure the services it provided to members of the public continued, while observing the Ministry of Health guidelines. During the period, strategic mechanisms such as drop-off boxes and online complaint forms were put in place to encourage members of the public to continue filing any grievances. Virtual platforms were used to hold and maintain stakeholder engagements and excerpts were also published in the local newspapers and in the institutions media pages thus ensuring that the office continued to play its part in the fight against corruption. Complaints were promptly addressed and members of the public encouraged to contact the office via the various additional contact platforms that had been introduced. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 4.1.1 Public Complaints Resolution and Referral Mechanism In the period FY 2020/21 a total of 1,829 complaints were received. By the end of the reporting period, 1,596 complaints, or 87per cent of those received, had been processed and were in various stages within the complaints resolution process. Out of these, 201 were marked as “qualified closures” with the possibility of the complaint being raised again as it had not been fully resolved and was subject to an ongoing judicial process; 208 complaints were lodged multiple times and were hence merged. As at the close of the reporting period, 13 per cent of the total complaints were new and pending. The total number of complaints received by the office increased by 17 per cent as compared to the previous year. This is shown in table 4.1 below. Table 4.1: OJO Data on Complaint Processing STATE FY 2019/2020 FY 2020/2021 Closed Successfully 914 947 Closed Unsuccessfully 2 2 Qualified Closures 131 201 Merged 68 208 New 171 233 Open 281 238 Total 1,567 1,829 Table 4.2: Comparative Chart of Prevalent Complaints SERVICES FY 2019/2020 FY 2020/2021 Change % Change Slow Service 335 520 185 55% Missing File 230 203 -27 -12% Cash Bail Refunds 45 32 -13 -29% Poor Service 515 638 123 24% Referral cases to Stakeholders 109 104 -5 -5% Employee Integrity 104 161 57 55% Delayed Rulings/Judgements 56 31 -25 -45% Date allocation 57 43 -14 -25% Delayed Orders 108 88 -20 -19% Cannibalised files 8 7 -1 -13% Loss of Exhibits 0 2 2 100% Table 4.2. is comparative data of the prevalent complaints handled in the last two financial years. Poor Service Complaints lodged and recorded under this category related to the quality of service received. There has been a continuous increase in this category over the past financial years with the reporting period recording a further increase by 185 complaints. While this increase is attributed to the office continuously sensitizing members of the public on the avenues available to them to register their dissatisfaction while being attended to in various courts, it is also an indication that members of public were not pleased with the quality of services they received from the courts. As a result, the office will make every effort to use strategic and timely methods to assess the areas of concern and make the necessary recommendations to improve its services. Slow Service The number of complaints received in this category increased by 55 per cent. This is due to the low adoption of IT systems implemented during the reporting period. Continuous training and sensitization for members of the public on how to use the new technology will be maintained to help avoid unnecessary delays. Cash Bail Refunds This category of complaints decreased from 45 per cent to 32 per cent in the previous reporting period. This reduction is attributed to the automation of the process as well as sensitization of the employees involved in the process. Missing Files From the previous reporting period, this category saw a decrease of 27 (12%) complaints. To further reduce this category to its bare minimum, stricter and more stringent measures will be implemented. Employee Integrity In the FY 2019/20, the office received 165 employee integrity-related complaints, while 145 cases were received in the FY 2020/21. The complaints handling manual is nearing completion, and the office will continue to take prompt and decisive action to address any unethical and/or corrupt behavior among its employees in accordance with the existing guidelines. The prevailing complaints processed during the reporting period are graphically represented in figure 4.1 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6254 6254 No of Complaints POOR SERVICE 6 8 SLOW SERVICE 520 MISSING FILE 203 EMPLOYEE INTEGRITY 161 REFERAL CASES TO STAKEHOLDERS 104 DELAYED ORDERS 88 DATE ALLOCATION 43 CASH BAIL REFUNDS 32 DELAYED RULINGS / JUDGEMENTS 31 CANNIBALIZED FILES LOSS OF EXHIBITS 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7 0 Figure 4.1: Number of Complaints per service processed The Tables 4.3 and 4.4 show the various categories of complaints received and processed by the office over the past four years Table 4.3: Complaints trends -FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 SERVICES 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 Slow Service 265 440 335 520 Missing File 182 330 230 203 Poor Service 243 385 515 638 Referral cases to Stakeholders 88 129 109 104 Employee Integrity 95 115 104 161 Delayed Rulings/Judgements 80 63 56 31 Date Allocation 7 137 57 43 Delayed Orders 95 112 108 88 Cash Bail Refunds 13 65 45 32 Files 11 14 8 7 Loss of Exhibits 0 9 0 2 Table 4.4: Complaint trends from 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 in Percentage SERVICES 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 Slow Service 25% 25% 21% 28% Missing File 17% 18% 15% 11% Poor Service 23% 22% 33% 35% Referral Cases to Stakeholders 8% 7% 7% 6% Employee Integrity 9% 6% 7% 9% Delayed Rulings/Judgements 7% 4% 4% 2% Date allocation 1% 8% 4% 2% Delayed Orders 9% 6% 7% 5% Cash Bail Refunds 1% 4% 3% 2% Files 1% 1% 1% 0% Loss of Exhibits 0% 1% 0% 0% Figures 4.4 and 4.5 graphically depict each service in the table on complaint trends over the last four years. Employee integrity related complaints have increased over the past two years and the institution shall continue to ensure that any employee found culpable of any maladministration is disciplined accordingly. The categories of services in the Table 4.7 exhibits a continued decline in the complaints received in all the categories. This is attributed to the various ICT platforms along with the stringent performance measurement mechanisms put in place to ensure efficiency in the delivery of services. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 4.2 Outreach and Partnerships In its quest to sensitise and educate members of public on the complaints redress mechanism available to them, two outreach activities were conducted during the reporting period. The first was a public clinic at the Kilgoris Law Courts which coincided with the official opening of the High Court sub-registry at the court.The second was an open day at the Garissa Law Courts undertaken in collaboration with the various stakeholders. These outreach exercises provide the institution with an opportunity to educate and sensitise members of the public from the region on the various court procedures. Through these outreaches, we both minimise complaints that are lodged by clients who do not understand the procedures of the court and also provide an avenue for those with genuine concerns a mechanism for the redress of those complaints. In addition, it helps to demystify the Institution in the eyes of “Mwananchi”. To strengthen the institution’s complaint processing, Judiciary employees in the 87 Court stations visited were educated on whistleblowing, the consequences of engaging in maladministration and corrupt practices, and the reporting mechanism available to them as employees. 4.2.1. Monitoring and Compliance with Practice Directions The disruptions caused by the pandemic notwithstanding, spot-checks were conducted in 87 Magistrates court and 13 High Court stations aimed at monitoring compliance with practice directions, memos and circulars issued from time to time and adherence to their respective service charters. This number was a slight increase from the previous year when the office conducted 70 spot-checks. The office relied on data compiled to map out courts that had not been visited for compliance checks over a period of time. Court stations that needed immediate fact finding visits based on complaints received were also attended to. During the court visits, the office continued to discuss areas of difficulty in service delivery with the employees and provided them with an opportunity to file complaints. Station liaison officers were re-trained on the complaint handling mechanisms to ensure timely and accurate reporting. 4.3 Audit and Risk Management Audit and Risk Management are primarily meant to ensure that the institution is employing its various resources as it should and in a manner that gives the institution value for money. It also enables the institution to consider, in advance, the potential risks and take mitigating action to combat the risks. The institution has continued to: 1. Review and appraise the efficiency and effectiveness, adequacy and application of systems of internal controls to mitigate risks and recommend remedial actions; 2. Assess the reliability of management information utilized in decision making; 3. Review compliance with existing laws, regulations, policies, plans and procedures, accounting pronouncements and contractual obligations; 4. Review controls for safeguarding the assets of the Judiciary and provide an independent view of proposed plans, systems, guidelines and transactions and recommending an appropriate action. During the reporting period, the audit of the Case Management System, Registry Management System and JFMIS was conducted, and the draft institutions Internal Audit Policies and Procedures Manual was developed. A total of 24 internal audits were undertaken in Kiambu, Sirisia, Mutomo, Taveta, Voi, Marsabit, Mukurweini, Nyamira, Keroka, Maralal, Kabarnet, Iten and Gichugu law courts. The audits covered registry management, accountable documents, revenue management, deposits management, procurement, expenditure management, cash books and bank reconciliation statements, general management, status of delinking from the sub county treasuries, and implementation of Covid-19 pandemic prevention and control measures. Audits of ICT governance and security, payroll management and pending bills of Judiciary, JSC, JTI, Transport Management, Expenditure Management at the Tribunals, Imprest Management at the Judiciary Headquarters, Expenditure Management at the Judiciary Headquarters and Procurement Management at the Judiciary Headquarters were also undertaken. To ensure that the recommendations made in the various internal audit reports were implemented, follow-up monitoring exercises were carried out in 18 Courts, tribunals and units. They include Kikuyu, Limuru, Milimani Commercial, Ruiru, Nairobi COA/Supreme, Business Premises Rent Tribunal, National Civil Aviation Tribunal, Garissa, Kwale, Mariakani, Shanzu, Kithimani, Mwingi, Kyuso, HIV Tribunal and JSC/JTI. Similarly, monitoring the implementation of the external audit reports and previous Public Accounts Committee Report recommendations was carried out. 4.4 Organisational Performance To enhance access to justice, Judiciary institutionalised performance management and measurement as a strategy for ensuring judicial services are rendered in a timely manner, and in line with the approved standards and progressive targets. This is an accountability measure that the Judiciary has put in place with an overarching aim of speeding up access to justice in courts and is spearheaded by the Administration of Justice and Performance Management Committee (AJPMC). This Committee comprises judges, magistrates, registrars and staff. The PMMUs targets are cascaded to individual employees through the use of Performance Appraisal Systems (PAS). 4.4.1. Performance of Courts and Administrative Units In the FY 2020/21, 283 implementing units comprising courts, directorates, offices of registrars, tribunals and semi-autonomous Judiciary agencies set performance targets and consequently signed PMMUs. The exercise was conducted concurrently with the evaluation of performance for the FY 2019/20 where a total of 279 implementing units were evaluated. From the evaluation, Judiciary achieved an overall average performance of 89.81 per cent. This marked a decline of 2.54 per cent from the performance of 92.35 per cent that was achieved in the FY 2018/19. The performance results were attained against the backdrop of the COVID- 19 outbreak which affected normal operations of courts. In relation to access to justice through courts, the overall performance of the Supreme Court was 88.42 per cent, Court of Appeal 81.95 per cent, High Court 78.20 per cent, Employment and Labour Relation Court 94.08 per cent, Environment and Land Court 84.54 per cent, Magistrates’ Courts 90.69 per cent, Kadhis’ Court 97.52 per cent, and Tribunals 90.56 per cent. In supporting courts to enhance access to justice, the Administrative Units performance was 97.73 per cent. As indicated, PMMUs are cascaded to individual employees . 4.4.2. Performance Statistics for the Judiciary Key performance indicators for Kenyan courts include Case Clearance Rate (CCR), productivity and time to disposition. The CCR refers to the rate of resolution of cases. A court with a CCR greater than 100 per cent shows that it was able to reduce its pending cases during the period under consideration. A CCR which is less than 100 per cent depicts rising pendency of cases for the court. Productivity on the other hand refers to average resolved cases by judges and/or judicial officers in a court and time to disposition shows the time from filing of case to its conclusion. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6256 6256 Table 4.5 gives the performance of courts during period under review. Table 4.5: Select performance statistics by court type, FY 2020/21 CCR (%) Average Time to Disposition (Days) Productivity Court Type CR CC All Cases CR CC All Cases Supreme Court - 132 132 - 292 292 52 Court of Appeal 76 45 50 1,142 788 866 248 High Court 74 101 92 455 1,143 893 299 ELRC - 83 83 - 967 967 203 ELC - 118 118 - 1,195 1,195 169 Magistrates’ Courts 86 68 82 194 608 289 581 Kadhis’ Courts - 81 81 - 59 59 136 Small Claims Court - 62 62 - 53 53 159 All Courts 85 76 83 597 638 577 N/A Note: - The court does not handle criminal matters The overall CCR for the Judiciary was 83 per cent. This yielded increasing pendency of cases in the Judiciary as elaborated in the access to justice section. For the broad case types, namely criminal and civil cases, the CCR was 85 and 76 per cent respectively. The Supreme Court and ELC achieved a CCR of above 100 per cent. This led to a reduction of the pending cases. The lowest CCR was in COA at 50 per cent. This was attributed to inadequate judges and the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. On average, cases in ELC took the longest time to resolve at 1,195 days. The least time to disposition was recorded in Small Claims Court at 53 days followed by Kadhis court at 59 Days. The average time to disposition for the Supreme Court was 292 days. Detailed information on time to disposition for the court stations is provided in the appendix 8. On productivity, the highest productivity among the superior courts was recorded in the High court at 299 cases per judge. In the subordinate courts, the highest productivity was recorded in the Magistrates’ courts at 581 cases per magistrate. 4.5 Performance Appraisal System Performance Appraisal System (PAS) is the tool used for enhancing individual and institutional accountability and entrench performance measurement. The tool seeks to measure the individual employee’s contribution. The evaluation outcome informs various human resource processes including career advancement and development and forms a permanent record of the employee. In the review period, 3,684 staff were appraised of whom 1,780 were male while 1,904 were female. In terms of individual staff performance, 16 staff were rated in the outstanding category, 158 staff in the excellent category, 466 staff translating in the very good category, the majority of staff at 2,995 staff were rated in the good category translating, 48 staff fair category whereas only one staff was rated in the poor category. Table 4.6 provides a breakdown of scores from the appraised staff. Table 4.6: PAS Rating from all Staff S. No Rating No. of Staff Average Score Percentage (%) 1 Outstanding 16 126 0.4 2 Excellent 158 105.8 4.3 3 Very Good 466 100.3 12.7 4 Good 2,995 93.5 81.3 5 Fair 48 69.1 1.3 6 Poor 1 46.6 0.03 Total 3,684 100 Through the PAS process, the Judiciary has been able to identify training gaps and needs for the Judiciary Staff. The most sought training being supervisory and records management. Staff exhibited a fair conduct as demonstrated by a mean score of 12.7 out of the maximum rating 20. This was lower compared to the previous year’s 18 out of 20. 4.5.1 Disciplinary Control The JSC exercised its mandate of disciplinary control on Judges, Judicial officers and staff. Disciplinary control is processed as per the provisions of the Chapter Six of the Constitution on Leadership and Integrity, Articles 10 and 232; the Judicial Service Act, 2011, Employment Act, 2007, Fair Administrative Action Act (No.4 of 2015); Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012; Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003; Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003; Labour Relations Act, 2007 and any other relevant legislation in force. 4.5.1.1 Complaints /Petitions against Judges One of the Commission’s key functions under Article 168 of the Constitution is to receive and consider petitions lodged against Judges. In the FY 2020/21, the JSC received and processed 103 petitions against Judges. Eighty-seven (87) complaints were concluded, while 31 were pending during the reporting period as indicated in Table 4.8: Table 4.7 Summary of Complaints Examined by JSC FY2020/21 NO. DETAILS NUMBER 1. Complaints pending as at 30 th , June 2020 15 2. Complaints received during the year 103 3. Total no. of complaints 118 4. Complaints concluded 87 5. Complaints pending to date 31 4.5.1.2. Disciplinary Matters against Judicial Officers and Judicial Staff in JSG 3 and Above In the FY 2020/21, the JSC received a total of six cases against Judicial Officers and Judicial Staff in JSG 3 and above while fourteen were pending matters from the previous year. Out of these, twelve cases were concluded, which include the review case. This represents 57 per cent of the total cases. Nine cases were pending as at the end of the reporting period as shown in the Table 4.9. Out of the twelve cases heard and concluded, three Judicial Officers were absolved, three were reinstated, three were warned, two contracts were terminated, while one review was disallowed. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE The disciplinary matters facing Judicial Officers included; Absenteeism,corruption/Bribery, Financial malpractices, poor work performance, unprofessional conduct and, arrest and confinement. Table 4.8: Disciplinary Matters against Judicial Officers and Judiciary Staff in JSG 3 and above PARTICULARS NO OF COMPLAINTS Disciplinary cases pending as at 30 th June, 2020 14 New Disciplinary cases received 6 Appeals/Reviews received 1 Total Disciplinary Cases 21 Total disciplinary cases concluded in FY2020/21 12 Disciplinary cases pending as at 30 th June, 2021 9 4.5.1.3. Disciplinary Matters against Judiciary Staff JSG 4 to 11 The JSC has delegated its disciplinary powers to the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary through the Human Resource Management Advisory Committee (HRMAC). The HRMAC is mandated to handle discipline matters for Judicial Staff in Judiciary Staff Grade JSG 4 to JSG11. In the review period, the Judiciary received 39 new cases while 108 cases were brought forward from the FY 2019/20. A total of 103 cases were finalized by the HRMAC, out of which 74 cases were from the backlog, while 29 were new cases. This represents 70 per cent of the total cases. A total of 44 cases were pending as at the close of the year. Table 4.9: Disciplinary Matters against Judiciary Staff in JSG 4 to JSG 11 PARTICULARS NO OF COMPLAINTS Disciplinary cases pending as at 30 th June, 2020 108 New Disciplinary cases received 39 Total Disciplinary cases 147 Total discipline concluded in FY/2020/2021 103 Discipline cases pending as at 30 th June, 2021 44 The disciplinary matters facing Judicial Officers and staff included; absenteeism, corruption/bribery, financial malpractices, poor work performance, unprofessional conduct and, arrest and confinement. CHAPTER 5—ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 5.1 Human Resources 5.1.1 Introduction The COVID- 19 pandemic created disruptions, uncertainties and complexities in work places. This has forced organisations to quickly innovate and implement sustainable strategies to continue offering services. Accordingly, to manage human resources sustainably, the Judiciary embraced technology and deepened it’s people-centred strategies in the delivery of services. The initiatives included flexibility in working methods, strengthening internal efficiency, talent acquisition and innovative changes based on individual court’s assessment and needs for smooth operation of activities. The human resource management strategies implemented were geared towards increasing employees’ well-being, productivity, motivation, health and safety at the workplace. Key achievements during the year included, filling of vacancies in critical offices and cadres, operationalisation of the Judiciary psychosocial support unit, finalisation of the implementation of the key aspects of the organisational review report recommendations, development and approval of Human Resource Policies for effective management and organisational development. Performance management and assessment were also conducted to enhance institutional and individual accountability. 5.1.2 Optimising Staffing Levels As at the beginning of the FY 2020/21, the Judiciary had a total of 5,277 employees out of an approved optimal establishment of 9,417.There were 174 Judges (3%), 535 Magistrates and Kadhis (10%), 181 Law Clerks and Legal Researchers (3%) and 4,387 Judiciary Staff ( 84%). Total employee variance was 4,140 representing a 44 per cent deficit. Consequently, the Judiciary is operating at 56 per cent of its optimum staffing levels as indicated in Table 5.1. To address the staffing challenges and ensure service delivery, the Judiciary conducted various human capital development activities during the year under review. These included recruitments, transfers, deployments, promotions and capacity building programmes. Table 5.1 Judiciary Staffing Levels in the FY 2020/21 NO. Description Approved Establish- Ment Current In Post Variance (Under-Establishment) % Under- Establishment 1. Judges 348 174 174 50% 2. Judiciary Officers 1,200 535 665 55% 3. Law Clerks and Legal Researchers 650 181 469 72% 4. Judiciary Staff 7,219 4,387 2,832 40% Total 9,417 5,277 4,140 44% The breakdown of the Judges, Judicial Officers and Staff per gender is as indicated in Table 5.2. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6258 6258 Table. 5.2. List of Judges, Judicial Officers and Staff by Gender in FY 2020/21 No Designation Gender Male Female Total 1. Supreme Court 4 3 7 2. Court of Appeal 10 10 20 3. High Court 34 41 75 4. ELC 21 30 51 5. ELRC 11 10 21 6. Chief Magistrate 42 33 75 7. Senior Principal Magistrate 50 23 73 8. Principal Magistrate 67 72 139 9. Senior Resident Magistrate 41 67 108 10. Resident Magistrate 26 62 88 11. Chief Kadhi 1 0 1 12. Senior Principal Kadhi 9 0 9 13. Principal Kadhi 17 0 17 14. Senior Resident Kadhi 25 0 25 15. Judicial staff 2,281 2,106 4,387 Total 3,088 2,870 5,277 List of Judges and Judicial Officers is attached as Appendix 17. 5.1.3 Promotions 5.1.3.1 Promotions of Judicial Officers PromotionalsuitabilityinterviewsforJudicial OfficerswereconductedbytheJSCtopromoteefficiency, enhance morale and productivity of Judicial Officers. The Commission interviewed 216 Magistrates and Kadhis in various cadres. On 10 th December 2020, the Commission promoted 180 Magistrates and Kadhis as indicated in Table 5.3: Table. 5.3: Promotions of Judicial Officers S/NO CADRE ESTABLISHMENT GAP NO. OF INTERVIEWED NUMBER PROMOTED 1. Senior Principal Magistrates to Chief Magistrate 22 40 22 2. Principal Magistrates to Senior Principal Magistrates 93 33 27 3. Senior Resident Magistrate to Principal Magistrate 153 89 80 4. Resident Magistrate-Senior Resident Magistrate 213 4 4 5. Principal Kadhi to Senior Principal Kadhi 8 8 8 6. Senior Resident Kadhi to Principal Kadhi Common Establishment 19 16 7. Resident Kadhi to Senior Resident Kadhi Common Establishment 21 21 8. Principal Deputy Registrar / Asst. Registrar – Senior Principal Deputy Registrar Common Establishment 2 2 Total 489 216 180 5.1.3.2 Recruitment of Judiciary Staff The Judiciary Organisational Review Report (2018) identified 2,832 vacancies relating to various cadres of Judicial Staff for filling to enable the Judiciary operate optimally. In the year under review, 624 of the vacant positions were advertised. 191 positions were filled while 433 positions were in the various stages of recruitment as at the end reporting period as indicated in Tables 5.4. Table 5.4: Judiciary Staff recruited within the FY 2020/21 S/NO. POSITIONS GENDER NO. APPOINTED REPORTING DATE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT 1. Deputy Director Building Services Male 1 January, 2021 Contractual 2. Assistant Director Civil/ Structural Engineering Female 1 January, 2021 Permanent 3. Assistant Director Architectural Services Male 1 January, 2021 Permanent 4. Assistant Director, Quantity Surveying Male 1 February, 2021 Permanent 5. Law Clerks Female 9 January, 2021 Contractual 6. Senior Legal Researchers Female - 22 Male - 6 28 January, 2021 Contractual 7. Legal Expert/Advisor Male 1 April, 2021 Contractual 8. Legal Counsel Male 1 April, 2021 Contractual 9. Legal Researchers Male - 29 Female -111 140 January, 2021 Contractual 10. Office Assistant Male - 4 Female - 2 6 June, 2021 Contractual 11. Driver/Aide Male 1 June, 2021 Contractual 12. Personal Assistant Male 1 June, 2021 Contractual The total number of men recruited out of the 191 positions was 46 (24.1%) whereas women were 145 (75.1%) 5.1.3.3 Positions Advertised pending filling They were 97 Positions advertised and will be processed in the FY 2021/22 as indicated in Table 5.5 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Table 5.5: Positions Advertised pending filling as at 30.6.2021 S/NO. POSITION JSG NO. DATE ADVERTISED 1. Resident Magistrates RM 50 28 th January, 2021 2. Resident Kadhi RK 15 28 th January, 2021 3. Legal Counsel (Hon. CRJ’s Office) 3 1 28 th January, 2021 4. Senior Legal Officer (Hon. CRJ’s Office) 4 1 28 th January, 2021 5. Senior Office Administrative Assistants (Secretarial Staff ) 7 30 28 th January, 2021 Total 97 5.1.3.4 Recruitment of Court Administrators and Accountants The following 336 positions were advertised internally and interviews carried out in October and November, 2020 as indicated in Table 5.6. Table 5.6: Recruitment of Court Administrators and Accounts Assistants FY 2020/21 NO. POSITIONS JOB GRADE VACANCIES APPLICANTS SHORTLISTED NO. INTERVIEWED 1. Senior Court Adminis- trators JSG 4 10 125 30 30 2. Court Administrator I JSG 5 62 317 110 103 3. Court Administrator II JSG 6 95 703 480 441 4. Senior Accounts Assistants JSG 7 25 183 159 133 5. Accounts Assistants JSG 7 144 239 173 137 TOTAL 336 1567 952 844 5.1.4 Separation of Employees During the year under review, 177 employees exited from the Judiciary of which 86 exited upon the attainment of retirement age. Another 62 were separated after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings which were pending from the previous years. Two staff exited upon expiry of their contracts while 14 employees resigned and 13 deaths were recorded. 5.1.5 Transfers and Deployments To improve service delivery, promote employee development and address staffing needs occasioned by exits, the Judiciary conducts transfer as per the Transfer Guidelines for Staff and Transfer Policy for Judges and Judicial officers. During the year under review 468 staff were transferred compared to 573 transfers in the previous financial year. 5.1.6 Organisational Review and Employee Satisfaction To improve organisational effectiveness and increase employee motivation the Judiciary implemented various reform strategies. These included review of the Judiciary organizational structure as well undertaking a salary survey to inform salary reviews for Judiciary staff among others. 5.1.6.1 Implementation of the Judiciary Organisational Review Report: The Judiciary conducted the Organisational Review in 2018 and has been implementing the recommendation of the review. Key milestones attained during the review period include: 1. Development and implementation of staff mapping exercise to ensure equitable distribution, deployment and engagement of staff. 2. Development and updating of staff skills inventory to inform career growth, deployments, appointments and address training needs. 3. Conducted a salary survey to inform review of salaries for Judiciary staff. 4. Developed and implemented career guidelines for Judiciary staff. 5. Development and implementation of the Gender Mainstreaming Policy; Sexual Harassment Policy; Record Management Policy; Judiciary Medical Insurance Policy; and Affirmative Action and Diversity Policy 5.1.7 Employee Wellness To ensure a healthy, motivated and inspired team, the Judiciary continued to implement various wellness and benefits programmes for Judges, Judicial Officers and staff. A medical scheme for all categories of the Judiciary employees and their dependants is in place. Group life cover is also in place. Other benefits include car grant for the Judges, car loan and mortgage scheme. In the wake of the COVID- 19 pandemic, the Judiciary established a Psychosocial Unit to support its employees. Thirty-two stations and 1,000 employees benefited from the support. In Nairobi, 850 employees were vaccinated against COVID-19. The Judiciary engaged a team of experienced psychologists under the Judiciary Medical Cover to provide professional counselling. The 173 individual cases of distress that were received by the Psychological Support Desk were attended to by the Unit’s professional team. Judiciary’s Psychosocial Support Desk and attended to by the professional team. 5.2 Training and Capacity Building in the Judiciary 5.2.1 Introduction The Institutionalisation of Judicial Training is a crucial component of consolidating Judicial independence and improving access to Justice. This was the driving force behind the establishment of the Judiciary Training Institute (JTI) in 2008, to provide judicial education and training for Judges, Judicial Officers and Staff. The need for judicial training was further accentuated in the 2010 Constitution. It established JSC as a constitutional commission under Article 171 and enunciated a key function of the Commission as the preparation and implementation of programmes for the continuing education and training of judges and other judicial officers. With the promulgation of the current Constitution in 2010, this function of the JSC was ceded to the JTI. The institute organises relevant training programmes that address the knowledge, attitudes and skills gaps for staff at both individual and group levels. The centrality of capacity building for a judicial institution cannot be overemphasised. Not only does capacity building enhance morale, it also contributes to the overall performance in the Judiciary by increasing the quality and efficiency of the workforce. 5.2.2 Training of Judges and Judicial Officers A summary of the training programmes conducted for Judges and Judicial officers during the period under review is given hereunder. The training schedule follows an institutionalized Judiciary Training Master Calendar that is prepared annually, taking into account the needs and training gaps in the Institution. Table 6.1 highlights the trainings that were undertaken for judges and judicial officers. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6260 6260 Table 5.7: Summary of training sessions for Judges and Judicial Officers, FY 2020/21 TRAINING PROGRAMMES FOR JUDGES 1 Human Rights, Biodiversity and Gender Mainstreaming VIRTUAL 2 Protection & Enforcement of Intellectual Property & Related Forms of Illicit Trade VIRTUAL 3 Cyber Crime & Electronic Evidence VIRTUAL 4 Training For Judges on Emerging Issues in Commercial Law VIRTUAL 5 Training For Magistrates on Active Case Management (Session 1) VIRTUAL 6 Anti-corruption, Money Laundering & Asset Recovery VIRTUAL 7 Counter Terrorism PHYSICAL 8 EDR Debrief for Supreme Court PHYSICAL 9 Refugee Law VIRTUAL 11 Induction of the Newly Appointed Court of Appeal Judges PHYSICAL TRAINING PROGRAMMES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS 1 Human Trafficking PHYSICAL 2 Administration of Gender justice for Kadhis and Annual Kadhis Retreat PHYSICAL 3 Human Trafficking PHYSICAL 4 Protection & Enforcement of Intellectual Property & Related Forms of Illicit Trade VIRTUAL 5 Cyber Crime & Electronic Evidence VIRTUAL 6 Emerging Issues in Commercial Law VIRTUAL 7 10 th Annual Judicial Dialogue on Environment and Wildlife crime VIRTUAL 8 Active Case Management VIRTUAL 9 Counter Terrorism for Magistrates PHYSICAL 10 Human Trafficking PHYSICAL 11 Environment & Land Adjudication: Unpacking the Law & Practice PHYSICAL 12 Induction for the Small Claims Court PHYSICAL 13 Second Annual Tribunals Symposium PHYSICAL A total of 11 and 13 capacity building forums for Judges and Judicial officers respectively were held during the period under review. The key highlight for some of the trainings listed in Table 5.7 are explained in subsections below. 5.2.3 Training on Human Rights, Biodiversity and Gender Mainstreaming for environment and Land Court Judges Kenya has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that calls for the conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of biodiversity. The CBD has prioritised the need for State parties to mainstream biodiversity into national plans, programs and policies to support economic and human development that is environmentally sustainable. Kenya is bound by obligations of the Convention on Biodiversity and has integrated biodiversity considerations in it’s legal and institutional framework including the Constitution and other statutes. Despite such recognition, there has been limited progress with enforcement of laws as well as gaps in adoption of innovative approaches for mainstreaming biodiversity in the legal and policy framework. It is against this background that the training was conceptualised. Capacity building focused on the concept of biodiversity, legal and regulatory framework governing biodiversity, emerging jurisprudence on biodiversity protection, mainstreaming human rights and biodiversity in Kenya, the role of Judiciary as well as women’s land rights and biodiversity conservation. 5.2.4 Training on Protection & Enforcement of Intellectual Property & Related Forms of Illicit Trade for Judges and Magistrates Illicit trade poses a serious socio-economic challenge globally, regionally and to Kenya. It undermines the concept of a free and open market, which is fundamental to improving competitiveness, increasing investment, creating jobs and improving the economic situation of a country. Further, Illicit trade undermines industries, poses health risks to consumers, sabotages tourism, stunts innovation and breeds lawlessness. Despite there being a legislative framework, illicit trade continues to plague the country and is often regarded as a petty crime. Consequently, training was held for judges and magistrates to enhance their knowledge on intellectual property rights in Kenya, its enforcement and the role of the courts in curbing illicit trade. The training covered, inter alia, copyrights and related rights, trademarks and well known marks, intellectual property enforcement, intellectual property dispute resolution, counterfeiting and interlinkages with other forms of illicit trade. It was further enriched by the dialogue and experience sharing between key players in the industry. The stakeholders represented were Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA), Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), the Poisons Board, Kenya Copyright Board, Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM) and the ODPP. The multinational intellectual property owners were also represented so as to share practical examples and challenges that are faced by intellectual property right owners. Kenya’s most popular artists shared their experiences with regard to the state of intellectual property protection in Kenya. The training coincided with the launch of the training manual on combating illicit trade and practitioner’s manual. 5.2.5 Training on Cyber Crime and Electronic Evidence for Judges and Magistrates Kenya is seen as a pace setter in implementation of ICT. However the robust information technology infrastructure in place has also become an attractive market for cybercriminals, making this a very pertinent issue in Kenya. As the country embraces digital technologies, cybersecurity concerns and challenges have become mainstream, and so have cyber related crimes that present new challenges to judges and magistrates. To mitigate the dangers of cybercrime, training of judges and magistrates was undertaken with an aim of equipping them with knowledge to adjudicate cases of cybercrime and those involving electronic evidence. The key sessions of the training were; digital hygiene; sources of digital and electronic evidence, the collection, analysis, preservation, admissibility and place of digital and electronic evidence, the role of the court and emerging jurisprudence, challenges of prosecuting cyber crimes in Kenya, and data protection and regulation. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 5.2.6 Training on Emerging Issues in Commercial Law for Judges, Magistrates and Legal Researchers The training was organised within the context of new legislation and emerging trends in commercial transactions particularly within the light of technology. The diverse training sessions targeted judges, magistrates and legal researchers and were held under the theme Improving Service Delivery in the Commercial Court; Facilitating Ease of Doing Business in Kenya and a Service Delivery Agenda. Emerging issues were tackled on insolvency and debt restructuring under the enacted Insolvency Act (No.18 of 2015). The training also covered arbitration practice and procedures in Kenya including emerging jurisprudence and developments, emerging issues in banking regulation (including digital lending), tax law and in particular, the Tax Law Amendment Act 2020. Further, the training encompassed the issue of injunctions in commercial disputes and case management when handling commercial disputes. 5.2.7 Training for Judges on Anti-corruption, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery The Judiciary continues to hear and determine disputes on corruption practices and embezzlement of public funds. While significant progress is being made on the determination of corruption cases, studies indicate that there’s still much scope for international cooperation due to the cross-border nature of corruption cases and the use of advanced technology in corruption deals. This requires that Judges and Magistrates are up to par with the developments hence the need for the training sessions. The training was facilitated by experts from Asset Recovery Authority, IFMIS Directorate, Public Procurement Regulatory Board and the Office of the Director Public Prosecutions. Different thematic areas were covered including transnational organised crime as well as the domestic, regional and international legal framework around corruption cases, adjudication of cases involving digital and electronic evidence in corruption. One of the areas where there is likelihood of corruption is public procurement and hence the Judges interacted with the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority. There were also discussions around asset tracing and the asset recovery process. 5.2.8 Election Dispute Resolution (EDR) Debrief for Supreme Court The objective of the Election Dispute Resolution (EDR) debrief was to provide judges of the Supreme Court with an opportunity to introspect on their experiences during the process of the election dispute resolution. It also provided an opportunity to make recommendations for legislative, policy and administrative change in the next election cycle. The Court got to reflect on support from the Judiciary Committee on Elections and how this may be enhanced in future. The dialogue was also joined by relevant stakeholders to discuss presidential petitions and emerging electoral law jurisprudence in Africa and electoral technology law. The judges reflected on the jurisprudence from the Court of Appeal and engaged with the Bar on their experience in litigating election petitions before the Supreme Court. 5.2.9 Training on Refugee Law for Judges The Refugees Act (No. 13 of 2006) provides for refugee status determination process. Also establishes the Department of Refugee Affairs (DRA), whose responsibilities include receiving and processing applications for refugee status. An appeal from the department lies to an Appeal Board. The Board is chaired by an experienced legal professional, and draws its membership from persons with knowledge of or experience in matters relating to immigration, refugee law, and foreign affairs. Since the enactment of the Refugees Act (No. 13 of 2006) in 2006, there has never been an appeal from the Board to the Court. The first appeal was preferred from the Refugee Appeals Board to the High Court during the period under review. In light of this development a sensitisation training for Judges of the Judicial Review division and judges from the Constitution and Human Rights Division was held where experts and resource persons from the Supreme Court, the High Court and the UNHCR were present. The judges were taken through the concept of and legal framework for refugee protection in Kenya as well as the asylum system including access, registration and documentation. 5.2.10 Induction of the Newly Appointed Court of Appeal Judges Following the gazettement and appointment of seven new Judges to the Court of Appeal in June 2020, an induction session was organised for the court. The induction presented an opportunity for the newly appointed judges to engage with senior Advocates, present and retired judges of the Court and the Supreme Court on issues and subjects intended to prepare them for service at the Court of Appeal. The judges were taken through the history, structure and administration of the Court of Appeal, the Court’s Rules, and strategic direction. In order to sharpen their judicial skills in readiness for service in the new court, there were reminders on the principals of judgment writing, efficient working in a multi-member bench, case management strategies and automation skills that would be applied while at the Court. Discussions around landmark decisions and emerging jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal was undertaken to bring the judges up to par with the developments. The importance of judicial wellness was covered highlighting the issues of emotional intelligence, collegiality, communication, and the code of ethics for Court of Appeal Judges. 5.2.11 Training on Human Trafficking for Magistrates Kenya has experienced incidents of forced labour and sex trafficking and aspires to fully meet the Trafficking Victims Protection Act’s (TVPA) minimum standards. Consequently, the training sought to elicit candid discussion amongst magistrates and other stakeholders on various topical issues around human trafficking, drawing from best practice and prosecutorial experience in other jurisdictions. Experts in the subject engaged with participants on the concept of trafficking in persons, the legal framework governing human trafficking, admissibility and the place of electronic evidence in these cases as well as investigations and evidence gathering of the transnational crime. 5.2.12 Training on the Administration of Gender Justice for Kadhis Kadhis courts are established under article 170 of the Constitution and have jurisdiction to hear and determine questions of Islamic law relating to personal status, marriage, divorce or inheritance in proceedings in which all the parties profess the Muslim religion and submit to the jurisdiction of the Kadhi’s courts. During the period under review, a retreat and training session for Kadhis, on the administration of gender justice was conducted. The training covered legal frameworks and foundational principles on equality and gender justice, challenges of access to justice in the context of equality and non- discrimination, gender sensitivity, gender blindness and inclusion, the justice chain and attrition, barriers, pathways for navigation in personal law and justice needs of vulnerable groups. Emerging legal issues and jurisprudence in matrimonial property and the Marriage Act (No.4 of 2014) as well as children matters were also discussed to guide Kadhis on the developments from superior courts. The interventions were also enriched by the feedback from Judges of the High Court on common grounds of appeal from Kadhis’ courts. 5.2.13 Tenth Annual Judicial Dialogue on Environment and Wildlife Crime The Annual Judicial Dialogues on environmental and wildlife crime have for the past 10 years served to bring together players and stakeholders in the environmental and wildlife crime sector. The objective of the dialogues is to provide a platform through which stakeholders and players in the sector can discuss developments, challenges and solutions to issues specific to wildlife and environmental crime. A dialogue with representation from various government agencies was held virtually under the theme ‘emerging issues and trends in adjudicating wildlife and environment crimes’. The main focus of the dialogue was the consideration of wildlife crime as a transnational organized crime, and fighting wildlife organized crime under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti- Money Laundering Act (No.9 of 2009) and the East African Customs Act. Further, the role of various players under mutual legal assistance arrangements was discussed. 5.2.14 Environment and Land Adjudication: Unpacking the Law and Practice 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6262 6262 The Jurisdiction of Magistrates to hear and determine environmental cases was conferred in the year 2015 when the Environment and Land Court Act (No. 19 of 2011) was amended to allow the Chief Justice ‘by notice in the Gazette, to appoint certain magistrates to preside over cases involving environment and land matters of any area of the country’. Subsequently in the case of Law Society of Kenya Nairobi Branch v Malindi Law Society & 6 Others Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 287 of 2016, the Court of Appeal held that the Magistrates Court can hear and determine environmental matters as a court of first instance limited by its pecuniary jurisdiction. It is against this background that the training session was conceptualised to build capacity amongst the participants on adjudication of environment and land matters. The training accorded the participants a chance to interact with Judges of the ELC and discuss emerging areas, practical issues and challenges in the adjudication of environmental and wildlife crimes. Other key issues that were covered during the training were environmental impact assessments (EIA), zoning & SIEA compliance, interlocutory applications in environment and land matters, the rights of an innocent purchaser for value without notice as well as emerging issues in eviction matters. 5.2.15 Induction for the Small Claims Court Following the operationalisation of the Small Claims Court, an induction session was held to equip the staff and prepare them for their roles in the Court. Amongst the areas of induction were the organisation and administration of the Court and the role of adjudicators and the Registrar as well as understanding the legislative framework of the Court. Due to the unique set up of the Court, the induction session also focused on management in small claims cases as well as ADR and mediation in small claims matters. To bring the first adjudicators at par with the current jurisprudence, the participants held discussions around emerging Jurisp rudence in small claims matters and also around the execution process as provided by Order 22 (Execution of Decrees & Orders) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 . As an impetus to align the Small Claims Court with the processes within the judiciary, there were discussions around aligning the Court with the Judiciary Strategic Plan and other processes. 5.2.16 The Second Annual Tribunals Symposium The Symposium brought together various members of the Tribunal held under the theme ‘Towards Efficient and Innovative Tribunals: A Service Delivery Agenda’. The Symposium brought together members of Tribunals that had transited to the Judiciary and those that were yet to transit. This was in recognition of the need to standardize the services that Tribunals were offering and enhance their capacity towards effective and efficient service delivery. The key training modules covered were; best practices around decision making in multi member settings, leveraging on technology for efficiency in service delivery, security practices and cyber- crime, judgment writing, court conduct and etiquette. The comparative dialogue with tribunal members from the UK was given as an insight into the workings of the Tribunal system in other countries. The status reports by each Tribunal was well appreciated as it helped the various Tribunals to appreciate the milestones and innovations that had been made and to learn from each other. 5.2.17 Training of Judiciary Staff 5.2.17.1 Training programmes The Judiciary continues to support Judiciary Staff to undertake continuous development programmes to equip them with the requisite skills and competencies. There were six trainings undertaken for Judiciary Staff however six staff trainings could not be undertaken due to budgetary limitations. The training undertaken for Judiciary staff are highlighted in Table 5.8 Table 5.8: Training programmes undertaken for staff, FY 2020/21 TRAINING PROGRAMMES MODE OF DELIVERY 1 Training on emerging issues in commercial law VIRTUAL 2 JTI Staff Training PHYSICAL 3 Induction for Supreme Court law clerks PHYSICAL 4 Induction for Court of Appeal senior legal researchers PHYSICAL 5 JTI staff training PHYSICAL 6 JTI SP and PMMU Retreat PHYSICAL TOTALS 5.2.17.2 Pupillage and Industrial Attachments In addition to training its employees, the Judiciary plays a key role in building capacity and providing mentorship opportunities for deserving Kenyans who get the chance of understanding the working and operations of the Judiciary. During the period under review, the Judiciary provided attachment and pupilage opportunities to 1,365 students. Out of these, seven students were offered pupilage, 129 Industrial attachments and 1,229 law students were offered judicial attachments in various courts. The trend of pupilage and attachments is illustrated in Table 6.32 Table 5.9: Pupillage and industrial attachments, FY 2015/17- 2020/21 Category 2015/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Clinical attachments 2,306 3,089 2,290 1,507 1,229 Pupilage 87 152 71 55 7 Other attachments 493 390 289 341 129 Total 2,886 3,631 2,650 2,135 1,365 5.2.17.3 Strategies to Enhance Judicial Training In order to enhance training of judges, judicial officers and staff within the Judiciary, several strategies and initiatives were undertaken during the period under review. The objectives of these strategies was to make capacity building more flexible and accessible during the COVID-19 pandemic period and further ensure that it was aligned to the needs of the various cadres of employees. 5.2.17.4 Development of a Curriculum for Judicial Training at JTI Pursuant to the provisions of Article 172(1) (d) of the Constitution and further to a comprehensive needs assessment carried out in the FY 2019/2020, JTI began the process of preparing a curriculum for Judicial Training. The curriculum is a listing of the training and professional development programmes that should be available to all judges and magistrates, drawing from the training gaps and priorities brought out in the needs assessment. It seeks to ensure that judges and judicial officers have the capacity to effectively carry out their duties and responsibilities. It further seeks to ensure that there is a balance in terms of training programmes related to substantive law, judicial management, decision making, social context, information and ICT, and judicial wellness programmes. A draft was developed during the period under review and was expected to be finalized in the next reporting period. 5.2.17.5 Impact Assessment of Judicial Trainings During the period under review, an impact assessment study of judicial training was conducted. The study sought to assess and evaluate the extent to which training programmes were efficacious in the delivery of outputs and outcomes intended for the proper and efficient functioning of the judiciary as envisioned under the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Judicial Service Act 2011 (No.1 of 2011). Further, the study sought to evaluate the extent to which individual Judges, Magistrates, other Judicial Officers and staff are trained at the JTI so as to guide any corrective actions by diagnosing the strength and weaknesses of training programmes. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 5.2.17.6 Development of an E-Learning System and Website During the financial year 2020/2021, JTI developed an eLearning platform, online jti.go.ke which is integrated to video conferencing with its full implementation expected to commence in the financial year 2021-2022. The e-learning system is expected to automate processes at JTI and ensure efficiency and effectiveness in managing training programmes. It is expected to offer access to a broad array of content and interactive self-paced learning tools and create a repository of all training and research. This will address the challenges of manual operations associated with mismanagement of information. 5.3 Information Communication and Technology 5.3.1 Introduction The rapid development and use of technology in courts for the past two decades has opened up new frontiers of service delivery. The availability of stable and fast internet connectivity, web services, on-line access to legislation and case law, use of electronic filing, and electronic exchange of legal documents are some of the developments that have compelled judicial administrations around the world to rethink their mode of operations in delivering their mandate. The Kenyan Judiciary through its strategic Blueprint policy documents prioritises technological development as a key focal area to support court work. The Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (SJT): A Service Delivery Agenda (2017-2021), the Strategic Plan (2019-2023), and the ICT Master Plan outlines a roadmap for digital transformation of court processes with a view of enhancing delivery of justice. The Digital Strategy has emphasized adoption of ICT solutions that are citizen-focused, convenient and accessible. This review period was Characterized by the COVID-19 pandemic which necessitated a significant increase in the use of technology especially on virtual courts to support unhindered delivery of justice. The key systems and tools include: virtual courts, video conferencing, e-filing, case tracking and e-receipts systems. 5.3.2 Virtual Courts In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Judiciary sought ways to keep courts operational despite their intermittent closures. The Judiciary used video conferencing to support virtual court sessions. Other tools that were used include the Microsoft TEAMS, Cisco Webex, Zoom and Go-to-Meeting. The tools allowed court users to join in a court session virtually. Accused persons who were in prison were not required to be present in courts for the mention of their cases but attended court sessions through virtual links. Since the commencement of virtual courts, nearly 170 court stations and Tribunals countrywide had embraced holding hearings through video and audio conferencing by the end of June 2021. Judges and Judicial Officers handled approximately 144,000 cases through the virtual platform and delivered over 31,000 judgements and rulings through Microsoft Teams and Go-To-Meeting video conferencing applications. 5.3.3 E-filing rollout for Nairobi Courts The e-filing system is a system designed by the Judiciary that allows court users to electronically file and submit documents to the court through an internet portal. In April 2020, the Chief Justice Hon. David K. Maraga issued a directive requiring all Nairobi County courts to use an e-filing system beginning July 1, 2021. Through Bar benches, Court User Committees, and court meetings, stakeholders such as Judges, registry staff, advocates, and the general public were able to participate in the further improvement of the system. The e-filing system fundamentally changed the way litigants engage with the court as it reduced the need for physical access to the courts. The system has many features including e-Case registration, automated fees assessment, e-Service facilitation, e-Payment and modalities for communication with parties. To use the system, court users were required to create an account, request for their cases to be linked to their accounts or file a case. All documents submitted to the portal were then automatically assessed and the user allowed to make payments remotely. A total of 8,314 accounts had been created on the portal at the end of the reporting period, comprising 4,826 individual accounts, 3,085 law firms, 333 organisations, and 70 State organizations. Using these accounts, 67,299 cases were submitted, 16,980 certificates of urgency were filed, 1,800 orders were created, and KSh939, 975,091 was collected in court fees, fines, and deposits using these accounts. A total of 3,097,090 papers were submitted using the system. 5.3.4 Case Tracking System The Case Tracking System (CTS) was developed by the Judiciary and has been in use since 2017. The CTS is the internal interface to the e-filing system and allows the Judges, Judicial Officers and registry staff to access the system. It was deployed for all the court stations in three phases. The first phase was completed in the FY 2016/17, the second phase in 2018/19, and the third phase, which covered all courts, in the FY 2020/21. Almost 90 per cent of all active cases had been captured in CTS by the end of the period under review. The implementation of CTS also involved its linking to Judiciary Financial Management Information System hence creating a seamless process where e-receipting and generation of orders were operationalized. The CTS has revolutionised the way court registries operate. The Judges and Judicial officers use the system to access documents filed by litigants through the e- filing system. They are then able to review files and give directions on cases. This has enhanced efficiency since they can work on documents remotely. The litigants are able to instantly access the orders and other court generated documents. The system is also integrated with Short Messaging Service (SMS) communications portal which instantly alerts parties when their file is updated. The system also allows for the creation of court reports, particularly basic caseload statistics. It also generates caseload returns using the Daily Court Return Template (DCRT) used in further data analysis. At the end of the reporting period, the CTS had received 1,359,297 cases. July. 2020 Sept. 2020 Dec. 2020 March. 2021 June. 2021 Growth of cases captured in CTS during the FY 2020/21. The Figure above shows that a total of 656,023 cases had been captured in CTS at the beginning of the FY. This grew over the review period to settle at 1,358,297 cases. The details of the cases for each court is provided in Table 1. 1,358,297 1,188,155 1,010,845 656,023 758,704 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6264 6264 Table 5.10: Capturing of cases in CTS by Court, FY 2020/21 Court July. 2020 Sept. 2020 Dec. 2020 March. 2021 June. 2021 Supreme Court 323 336 351 365 395 Court of Appeal 7,547 9,242 10,017 11,231 12,210 High Court 153,442 163,984 185,624 196,125 207,252 ELC 36,827 39,181 42,780 44,549 46,292 ELRC 20,195 21,911 22,546 24,380 25,254 Magistrates’ Courts 427,064 496,289 713,813 867,193 1,013,500 Kadhis’ Courts 3,672 8,489 12,649 14,812 16,832 Tribunals 6,953 19,272 23,065 29,500 36,562 All Courts 656,023 758,704 1,010,845 1,188,155 1,358,297 In all the courts, there has been tremendous growth and use of CTS. The details of the cases captured in CTS for specific stations is provided in the appendices. 5.3.5 Judiciary Financial Management Information System The Judiciary Financial Management Information System (JFMIS) is a financial management system deployed in courts for management of court revenue, which includes fees and fines, court deposits and expenditure. The system is in use in all court stations. During FY 2020/21, JFMIS was integrated with the CTS which fully automated all the processes from court fees assessment and e-receipting across all stations in the Judiciary. The JFMIS has enabled the generation of digital receipts, thereby eliminating the need for manual receipt books and manual processes. Revenue leaks have been reduced because a digital trail is kept of all transactions. In addition, the system generates financial reports, allowing for timely financial reporting. 5.3.6 Court Recording and Transcription System The Court Recording and Transcription System (CRTS) is designed to automate the courtrooms through digital recording of proceedings and provision of transcription services. The CRTS allows Judges and Judicial Officers to avoid writing all court proceedings as they are recorded automatically. This allows ample time to concentrate on the proceedings in court including making observations rather than focusing on recording the court proceedings. Transcribers are then given access to the recording in order to provide transcripts. The system provides an electronic version of proceedings that accurately reflects what happened in Court, making it easier for Judicial Officers to write rulings and judgments. During the reporting period, various courts and courtrooms were installed with the CRTS equipment. These included the Supreme Court and five Court of Appeal court rooms in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, Nyeri and Malindi. Other courts where the equipment were installed were: Kisumu ELRC, Nairobi ELRC, Nairobi ACEC Court at Milimani High Courts, Kisii High Court, Mombasa High Court, Nakuru High Court, Naivasha High Court, Embu High Court, Bungoma High Court, Busia High Court, three courtrooms of Milimani Anticorruption Court, Milimani Chief Magistrate Court no. 6, Makadara Law Court and Kibera Law Court. Transcripts are prepared within 48 hours of a request from a Judge or Judicial Officer. So far 4,193 hours has been transcribed, generating 25,445 transcripts. The Judiciary has set-up a transcription unit to provide transcription services using recordings done under the CRTS. The Judiciary has o partnered with the Ministry of ICT, Youth and Innovation through the Ajira programme to provide transcription services. It has also greatly improved the quality and accuracy of the proceedings which are then used as records of appeal. The system has reduced the turnaround time in the generation of transcripts for court proceedings compared to the previous manual records. 5.3.7 Digitisation of Court Recordings The Judiciary launched the e-filing systems which enabled court users to file all court documents electronically through the e-filing portal. The service was available in all courts in Nairobi County with plans to launch in other counties. Although the court users were submitting their documents electronically it was realised that for active cases, the bulk of the court documents were in physical files in the court registries. This affected the use of the e-filing portal because Judicial Officers needed access to the information filed electronically as well as physical files at the registry. Consequently, the Judiciary embarked on data entry and scanning services through expanding the scope of the Ajira digital Project. This project was implemented by the Kenya Private Sector Alliance (KEPSA) with funding from Mastercard Foundation. The goal of the data entry and scanning was to accurately and completely capture approximately 135,130 cases to CTS; to accurately and completely digitise approximately 280,600 court files, which will involve scanning, indexing, paginating/tagging the files, and uploading into CTS. The project has so far scanned 122,044 files comprising 4,878,491 images. 5.3.8 Enterprise Resource Planning System The administrative functions of the Judiciary are being automated through an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. During the reporting period, the Judiciary re- initiated the process of acquiring an ERP system. A concept note was prepared and presented to the Management for review and approval. The concept note contained the business case and benchmarking report having visited a number of similar institutions including the Kenya Revenue Authority, Kenya Power and Lighting Company, Kenya Ports Authority, The University of Nairobi, Cooperative Bank of Kenya, Kenya Commercial Bank, Safaricom PLC and National Social Security Fund. 5.3.9 ICT Infrastructure Development Provision of internet services in courts is essential for smooth operation of virtual courts, e-receipting, e-filing and case tracking system. The Judiciary acquired cloud services from two service providers to host the various systems including the e-filing and CTS. A total of nine servers with capacity of 208GB RAM, 96 Cores processing power and 37 TB Storage capacity were procured. The systems hosted on the cloud servers include E-mail service, CTS, JFMIS, e-filing, notifications and their respective databases. The Judiciary plans to replace the cloud servers with the new revamped data centers. During the reporting period, a number of court stations had Local Area Network (LAN) installations completed. These included Engineer, Molo, Makindu, Kitui, Chuka, Kigumo, Vihiga, Muhoroni, Nanyuki, Maralal, Kwale, Kajiado, Narok and Kahawa Law Courts. During the reporting period, the Judiciary contracted a new internet service provider, which resulted in more stations being connected and the bandwidth being increased from 1.326 Gbps under the previous contract to 4.215 Gbps under the new contract. The previous contract covered 129 stations, while the new contract covers 162 stations. The 15 large stations also had a secondary/back up internet link. The contract also included additional installation of WiFi in 22 court stations. A total of 129 sites had been migrated and connected to the new service provider. 5.3.10 Other ICT Initiatives for the FY 2020/21 a) An ICT security consultant was engaged to carry out a comprehensive examination and assessment of the security of all deployed systems. The purpose was to ensure that systems deployed are secure and robust to support the core business. The Judiciary has a comprehensive understanding on the security status of its ICT systems. b) A training curriculum on the automation within the Judiciary was developed. The training curriculum proposed course targeting Judges, Judicial Officers, staff, advocates and other court users. A number of Standard Operating Procedures and user manuals have been developed and shared widely with all stakeholders. The Judiciary collaborated with LSK, ODPP and EACC to ensure that external stakeholders were trained on the use of the new systems especially e-filing and the virtual courts. The engagements were done through virtual meetings and webinars. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE c) The Judiciary began the procurement of 298 backup UPSs and AVS for a total cost of KSh24.7 million. This was done to mitigate the frequent and extended downtimes of CTS, the e- filing system, and the JFMIS. Modems and data bundles were also provided to courts at a cost of KSh7.4 million. d) The Judiciary initiated the establishment of three Data Centers, which will be designated as the Primary Data Center, Secondary Data Center, and Backup Data Center. The Data Center Services are critical for hosting the equipment and services required for the Judiciary’s operation. 5.3.11 Collaborations on ICT Ventures The Judiciary collaborated with a number of other Government agencies and partners in delivery of the automation vision. The Judiciary signed an MoU with the Ministry of ICT, Innovation and Youth Affairs to collaborate in facilitating transcription of court proceedings, installation of structured cabling in court stations, connecting National Optic Fibre Backbone (NOFBI) to courts and data back- up. The Judiciary is also collaborated with the Communications Authority to improve structured cabling in selected courthouses, funded at KSh250 million grant by the Universal Service Fund. The Judiciary also worked with a number of development partners to support the automation. These include the IDLO through the Commercial Justice Sector Reform project which provided support through court recording equipment, computers, technical book camps and training of various stakeholders. The World Bank, through the JPIP project provided support to court recording, provision of computers and the roll-out of the CTS in 64 court stations. 5.3.12 Digitisation Strategy; Challenges experienced The e-filing system experienced frequent downtimes because the infrastructure was still being developed causing user frustration due to delayed support and response to queries. The JFMIS faced challenges in court operations due to the fact that all matters had to be registered online and payment made before issuance of receipts. Any break in the processing chain meant that court users were frustrated and that court operations were sometimes halted. Lack of funds hampered the recruitment of transcribers to facilitate digital recordings. It is therefore proposed that a call Center be operationalised by the Judiciary so that services may be delivered by a single point of contact for all inquiries and customer service can be streamlined. The Judiciary should train all internal stakeholders on how to get the most out of the current ICT infrastructure. CHAPTER SIX—RESOURCE MOBILISATION AND UTILIZATION 6.0 Introduction This Chapter presents the financial allocation, expenditure, revenue and deposits. Chapter covers the resource requirements for the Judiciary versus its allocation, approved budget estimates versus actual expenditure analysis, and expenditure analysis versus the allocation. The chapter further presents information on court revenue and deposits; automation of court revenue; expenditure and deposit processes; operationalization of the Judiciary Fund; financial challenges and recommendations for the improvement of financial allocation for the Judiciary. 6.1 Budget Preparation Process in the Judiciary The Judiciary’s budget process is anchored in Article 173 (3) of the Constitution which requires the CRJ as the accounting officer to prepare estimates of expenditure each financial year. The budgeting process including the budget format and specific timelines to be adhered to are provided for in the Public Finance Management (PFM) Act, 2012; the Judicial Service Act, 2011; the Judiciary Fund Act, 2016 and the Judiciary Fund Regulations, 2019. The process is consultative and participatory as required in Article 201 of the Constitution and Section 37(5) (a) of the PFM Act, 2012. During the period under review, the Judiciary continued to prioritise expeditious dispensation of justice programme with two broad sub- programmes, namely, access to justice; and general administration, planning and support services. Drawing from these two sub-programmes, the delivery units in the Judiciary prioritised specific initiatives primarily drawn from the Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (SJT) (2017-2021), and the Key Result Areas (KRAs) of the Judiciary Strategic Plan (2019-2023). The resource requirements were prepared by consolidating funding requests from all courts, tribunals, registrars of the various courts, directorates and other independent spending units in the Judiciary. The proposed budget for the Judiciary was further subjected to public hearings. The Judiciary’s Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget proposal was uploaded on the Judiciary’s website for the stakeholders and the general public to give feedback. The stakeholders and the public were engaged through the public hearings which were held in regions as follows: in Coast region in Mombasa; Rift Valley region in Nakuru; Mt. Kenya Region in Nyeri; in Nyanza and Western region in Kisumu and Nairobi region. Among the Key issues raised during these public hearings were on the need to increase quality and timely service delivery to all citizens in all parts of the country (including the marginalized and persons with disabilities) and, where possible to facilitate citizens through increased pro bono services. It was noted that all these would require additional funding. The feedback received helped to improve the final budget proposal for the Judiciary before it was submitted to Parliament for consideration. 6.2 Judiciary Budget Requirements versus Allocation FY 2018/19- 2020/21 A comparison of the resource requirements and resource allocation for the Judiciary is presented in Table 6.1. Table 6.1: Resource Requirements versus Allocation FINANCIAL YEAR RECURRENT DEVELOPMENT KSH. M OVERALL 2018/19 Requirements 22,378 8,790 31,168 Allocation 13,086 3,203 16,289 Funding Gap (%) 42% 64% 48% 2019/20 Requirements 16,991 6,295 23,286 Allocation 13,797 3,166 16,963 Funding Gap (%) 19% 50% 27% 2020/21 Requirements 30,684 6,731 37,415 Allocation 14,575 2,558 17,133 Funding Gap (%) 52% 62% 54% Resource requirements for the Judiciary have not been met for the past fiscal years as evidenced by Table 6.1. The table shows that the overall budget deficit increased from 27 per cent to 54 per cent from FY 2019/20 to FY 2020/21. Specifically, recurrent budget deficit increased from 19 per cent to 52 per cent while the development budget deficit increased from 50 per cent to 62 per cent from FY 2019/20 to FY 2020/21 respectively. Figure 6.1 is an illustration of the resource requirements versus the allocation for the past three financial years. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6266 6266 Figure 6.1: Resource Requirements versus Allocation During the year under review, the Judiciary continued to allocate finances in line with the JSC approved criteria. The non-discretionary budget items such as personnel emoluments (PE) and contractual obligations such as security and cleaning services, leased printers, internet services, medical cover, insurances and utilities among others were prioritized and ring-fenced. The remaining funds under the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) were shared among all the spending units at the headquarters, courts and tribunals. At the court level, three parameters were used in sharing resources: 50 per cent weight was allocated to case load, 30 per cent to the number of Judicial Officers and 20 per cent to the number of Judicial Staff. Allocation of the budget for the FY 2020/21 per the court levels is as presented in Table 6.2. Table 6.2: Budget Allocation for Court Stations FY2020/21 S/No. Levels of Court Allocation (KSh M) 1. Supreme Court 47.94 2. Court of Appeal 92.68 3. High Court 280.32 4. Employment and Labour Relations Court 27.31 5. Environment and Land Court 27.09 6. Magistrates Courts 744.95 7. Tribunals 347.47 Allocation of the budget for all the court levels and Tribunals is as presented in Figure 6.2. 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 22,378 Requirements 8,790 13,086 3,203 Allocation 16,991 Requirements 6,295 13,797 3,166 Allocation 30,684 Requirements 6,731 14,575 Allocation 2,558 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 6.2 Percentage allocation of budget per court levels FY 2020/21 Figure 6.2 shows that Magistrates’ Courts received the highest budget at 47 per cent, followed by the Tribunals at 22 per cent and then the High Court at 18 per cent. The allocation for the Magistrates Courts was high because it included the maintenance of all buildings, payment of utilities (water and electricity), cleaning and security services. The allocation for Tribunals was high because it included sitting allowances for all tribunal chairpersons and members. 6.3 Approved Budget Estimates (FY 2018/19 – FY 2020/21) The budget allocation for the Judiciary in FY 2018/19 was KSh16.095 billion which increased by 5 per cent to KSh16.963 billion in FY 2019/20 and rose by 1 per cent to KSh17.133 billion in FY 2020/21. The recurrent budget of KSh14.575 billion was financed entirely by the exchequer. 6.4 Budget Expenditure Analysis The overall absorption rate was at 94.3 per cent in FY 2018/19, which reduced slightly to 93.9 per cent in FY 2019/20 and then dropped slightly to 92.8 per cent in FY 2020/21. The reduction in the absorption rate can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic which negatively impacted the implementation of activities such as workshops, retreats and trainings. Figure 6.3 is a presentation of the overall budget absorption rate which is further broken down into the absorption rates for both recurrent and development budgets. 6.4.1 Analysis of Recurrent Expenditure Presentation of the recurrent expenditure is usually done under the following economic classifications is based on the different areas of spending, namely, compensation for employees; transfers; Appropriation in Aid (AIA); and Operations and Maintenance (O&M). Table 6.3 presents a breakdown of the approved budgetary allocation versus actual expenditure for the past three financial years. Table 6.3: Analysis of Recurrent Budget the Judiciary (KSh M) Approved Budget Versus Actual Expenditure (KSh Million) Economic 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Classification Approved Actual Approved Actual Approved Actual Compensation to Employees 7,600 7,600 8,190 8,183 9,402 9,393 Transfers 593 580 - - - - Other Recurrent 4,893 4,663 5,607 5,351 5,173 5,021 AIA - - - - - - Total 13,086 12,843 13,797 13,534 14,575 14,414 The Table 6.3 shows that recurrent budget allocation increased by 5 per cent in FY 2019/20 and by 6 per cent in FY 2020/21. The share of compensation to employees over the total recurrent budget increased from 59.2 per cent in FY 2019/20 to 64.5 per cent in FY 2020/21 which is attributed to the reclassification of Employer’s Contribution to pension under PE economic classification. The share of other recurrent budget declined from 40.6 per cent in FY 2019/20 to 35.5 per cent in FY 2020/21. 6.4.2 Analysis of Development Expenditure Classification of development expenditure is done as per the source of funding namely: Government of Kenya (GOK); Loans, Grants, and Appropriations in Aid (AIA). An analysis of approved versus actual development expenditure is presented in Table 6.4. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6268 6268 Table 6.4: Analysis of Development Approved Budget vs Actual Expenditure (KSh M) Economic Approved Actual Approved Actual Approved Actual Expenditure Classification Budget Expenditure Budget Expenditure Budget 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 GOK 147 130 971 651 292 281 Loans 2,998 2,331 2,195 1,748 2,266 1,202 Grants 58 52 - - - - Local AIA - - - - - - Totals 3,203 2,513 3,166 2,399 2,558 1,483 The Judiciary’s development budget reduced by 1.2 per cent from KSh3.2 billion in FY 2018/19 to KSh3.16 billion in FY 2019/20 then decreased by 19.2 per cent in FY 2020/21 to KSh2.558 billion. The absorption has been on a general decline from 79 per cent in FY 2018/19 to 76 per cent in FY 2019/20 and 58 per cent in FY 2020/21. 6.4.3 Analysis of Programme Expenditure The mandate of the Judiciary is captured under the “Dispensation of Justice” programme. This programme comprises two sub-programmes namely: Access to Justice; and General Administration Planning and Support Services. The Access to Justice sub-programme was allocated a larger share of resources as it is the core mandate of the Judiciary. Expenditure analysis for the two sub- programmes is provided in Table 6.5. Table 6.5: Analysis of Programme Expenditure Approved Budget Versus Expenditure (KSh Million) 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Approved Expenditure Approved Expenditure Approved Expenditure Sub- Programme. 1: Access to Justice 12,363 11,503 12,824 11,873 13,960 12,804 Sub- Programme. 2: General Administration and Support Services 3,926 3,853 4,139 4,060 3,173 3,093 Total 16,289 15,356 16,963 15,933 17,133 15,897 Table 6.5 shows that budget allocation for the ‘Access to Justice’ sub-programme increased from KSh12.82 billion in FY 2019/20 to KSh13.96 billion in FY 2020/21. The approved budget for the ‘General Administration Planning and Support Services’ sub-programme decreased from KSh4.12 billion in the FY 2019/20 to KSh3.17 billion. This means that the overall budget for the Judiciary increased slightly by one per cent from KSh16.96 billion to KSh17.13 billion in the fiscal year under review. The allocation of these additional resources was undertaken in line with the core mandate of the Judiciary whereby the overall allocation of the access to justice sub-programme increased from 76 per cent in the FY 2019/20 to 81 per cent in the FY 2020/21. 6.5 Court Revenue The Judiciary is an appointed Receiver of Revenue (ROR) by the National Treasury with the power to collect revenue related to its core mandate on behalf of the Government of Kenya. The funds collected by Judiciary are transferred to the exchequer through the Central Bank of Kenya. Court revenue consists of fines and forfeitures fees for filing cases and for use of goods and services provided by Judiciary; and revenue from government property. Court fines are imposed by the court and they also precipitate from forfeiture of legal deposits such as those from failure of individuals who paid court deposits to adhere to court directives on bond terms, or by the request of the accused to have part or whole of their legal deposits treated as fine. Court fees are levied and payable by the participant in the court proceedings and after affidavits may include: application fees, cost of orders, service fees and fees related to exhibits, affidavits and copies among other services. Revenue from government property mainly consists of rent from government buildings and interest income on deposits among other sources. Figure 6.4 illustrates revenue collected during the reporting period from the three sources in the Judiciary. Figure 6.4: Revenue composition for FY 2020/21 In the FY 2020/21, fines contributed 52 per cent (KSh. 1.26 billion) of the court revenue. Fees collected amounted to 44 per cent (KSh. 1.07 billion) while other income from interest on court deposits and rent from property was 4 per cent (KSh. 0.11 billion) of the total revenue 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 6.5.1 Revenue Trends There was however improvement in revenue collection in FY 2020/21 where KSh2.43 billion was collected. This is illustrated in Table 6.6: Table 6.6: Revenue collections over the last three financial years FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 Change from 2018/19- 2019/20 Change from 2019/20- 2020/21 KSh’000 KSh’000 KSh’000 KSh’000 % KSh’000 % Fines 1,638,577 1,263,813 1,258,757 (374,764) -23% -5,056 0% Fees 1,055,227 932,073 1,065,105 (123,153) -12% 133,032 14% Other Income 0 75,318 106,772 75,318 >100% 31,454 42% Total 2,693,804 2,271,204 2,430,635 (422,599) -16% 159,430 7% Total revenue collection increased by seven per cent from FY 2019/20 to FY 2020/21. This improvement was attributed to increase in cases filed from 337,510 in FY 2019/20 to 356,997 in FY 2020/21 and commensurate increase in resolved cases from 289,728 in FY 2019/20 to 294,837 in FY 2020/21. In addition, revenue collection was automated and e-receipting adopted in all court stations. Figure 6.5 shows that there was a decline in total revenue from FY 2018/19 to FY 2019/20 followed by marginal growth in FY 2020/21. 6.5.2 Comparison of Revenue Collected against Target Section 75 (2) of the PFM Act, 2012 stipulates that a receiver of national Government revenue is responsible to the Cabinet Secretary for its collection. Such revenue shall be separately accounted for in accordance with Articles 206 (1) and 209 (1), (2) and (4) of the Constitution. The Cabinet Secretary responsible for Finance through a Circular sets revenue projections at the beginning of each financial year to be collected by the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) who are designated collectors of national Government revenue. Table 6.7: Revenue Collections over the last three financial years Revenue Estimate Change in Revenue Targets Actual Revenue Collected Percentage change in Revenue Collected Shortfall in targeted revenue Percentage Revenue Realization FY KSh’000’ % KSh’000’ % KSh’000’ % 2018/19 4,548,208 56% 2,693,804 30% -1,854,404 59% 2019/20 2,990,857 -34% 2,195,886 -18% -794,971 73% 2020/21 1,811,796 -39% 2,430,635 11% 618,839 134% The target set by the National Treasury reduced by 60 per cent, from KSh.4.54 billion in FY 2018/19 to KSh1.81 billion in the FY 2020/21. The higher revenue realisation in FY 2020/21 was attributed to interest on court deposits that was not previously earned. Figure 6.6 is an illustration of the set revenue target against the actual revenue collection. Figure 6.6: Revenue Targets against Actuals Analysis for FY 2018/19– FY 2020/21 Revenue estimates have been higher than the actual revenue collections over the previous two financial years. Revenue collected is dependent on cases filed and matters resolved in a given period. Table 6.8 presents revenue collected by all courts over the past three years. Table 6.8: Revenue collected by all courts FY 2018/19 – FY 2020/21 S/ Court Station No 2020-2021 Fines 2019-2020 2018-2019 2020-2021 Fees 2019-2020 2018-2019 KSh KSh KSh KSh KSh K Sh 1 Baricho 4,721,467 3,428,342 9,712,679 3,184,307 2,356,883 3,487,397 2 Bomet 9,893,228 9,658,536 17,753,467 3,279,676 2,347,171 2,714,610 3 Bondo 7,293,451 3,872,871 6,515,645 4,348,176 2,861,118 3,091,406 4 Bungoma 8,166,610 10,521,009 11,327,833 11,011,589 10,247,917 12,521,287 5 Busia 17,672,724 11,964,164 9,595,756 11,033,204 7,649,987 7,509,176 6 Butali 1,430,699 1,663,854 2,807,984 3,178,874 1,163,629 2,014,970 7 Butere 2,532,326 2,726,191 4,626,032 2,625,491 1,729,923 1,970,580 8 Court of Appeal - - 2,400,000 13,452,068 22,983,146 19,294,496 9 Chuka 12,029,074 11,754,438 16,734,366 5,974,590 4,612,472 5,694,437 10 Dadaab Law Courts 190,000 - - 37,665 - - 11 Eldama Ravine 12,480,552 8,340,087 12,750,512 1,969,647 1,901,922 2,579,874 12 Eldoret 25,866,397 18,010,308 29,376,223 32,646,382 25,818,011 26,936,759 13 Embu 6,830,811 9,346,334 10,860,419 8,216,170 8,161,280 9,604,948 14 Engineer 14,821,833 6,316,375 6,695,920 4,268,150 2,748,248 2,405,542 Garissa - Magistrate 12,585,613 10,782,129 16,054,115 4,737,958 2,606,691 2,591,501 Garissa - Balambala Kadhi - - - 58,075 67,450 40,325 Garissa - Dadaab Kadhi - - - 152,000 160,935 161,150 Garissa - Ijara Kadhi - - - 124,330 169,635 302,015 Garissa - Modogashe Kadhis - - - 54,995 148,028 - Garissa - Bura/ Fafi Kadhi Court - - - 51,450 37,200 - 16 Garsen 3,016,309 1,928,850 746,670 1,365,325 1,333,180 1,201,220 17 Gatundu 14,566,859 8,162,906 11,175,329 7,185,079 4,135,687 5,660,407 18 Gichugu 4,819,135 3,769,249 6,159,473 2,167,779 1,087,535 1,479,739 19 Githongo 4,189,726 3,518,760 6,392,297 2,035,422 1,244,150 1,603,181 20 Githunguri 5,786,467 3,023,182 6,822,731 2,719,248 2,686,150 3,443,186 21 Hamisi 3,383,148 2,671,996 2,094,087 822,667 753,677 907,872 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6270 6270 22 Hola 2,216,598 1,136,018 982,619 633,783 517,722 420,437 23 Homa Bay 7,767,707 4,838,163 6,784,463 4,839,660 4,363,514 3,624,936 Isiolo - Magistrate Court 12,738,008 8,169,755 11,284,272 2,490,756 1,912,205 1,796,590 Isiolo - Garbatullah Kadhi - - - 110,465 85,315 - Isiolo - Merti Kadhi Court - - - 282,525 113,475 - 25 Iten 5,248,642 9,896,974 9,455,602 1,942,649 1,129,764 1,196,056 26 JKIA 3,789,210 4,974,774 8,280,102 158,285 176,222 135,635 27 Kabarnet 2,916,584 2,309,976 3,982,112 1,280,505 1,026,499 1,325,253 28 Kajiado 5,511,835 14,713,081 22,064,179 12,766,769 8,802,482 11,343,121 29 Kahawa 100,000 - - 4,490 - - 30 Kakamega 6,367,548 7,853,128 9,784,537 10,429,153 9,808,549 11,777,871 31 Kakuma 1,350,028 881,855 1,218,481 221,565 108,735 49,306 32 Kaloleni 1,567,538 884,619 1,591,428 2,503,210 2,290,667 1,146,640 33 Kandara 11,236,015 8,727,584 7,463,815 5,699,245 3,928,157 3,542,882 34 Kangema 5,819,522 3,474,990 6,764,880 1,563,906 1,530,052 1,576,288 35 Kangundo 12,064,864 6,190,392 10,905,244 5,565,301 4,959,835 4,643,821 36 Kapenguria 7,125,333 5,466,102 6,906,382 1,693,562 1,196,408 1,088,919 37 Kapsabet 7,099,684 15,563,593 29,069,936 4,888,060 3,984,772 3,363,341 38 Karatina 5,747,649 3,844,769 6,374,549 3,811,224 2,283,745 3,047,853 39 Kehancha 6,243,448 2,420,162 5,335,801 739,933 726,416 581,560 40 Kericho 12,344,424 14,235,127 26,384,455 8,544,796 7,445,187 9,435,023 41 Keroka 8,734,151 2,499,929 3,457,400 2,524,373 813,298 1,353,969 42 Kerugoya 3,852,387 2,925,898 5,778,846 8,119,691 6,700,114 7,609,913 43 Kiambu 34,311,121 13,569,843 22,598,134 16,504,353 13,496,892 13,686,578 44 Kibera 50,779,939 47,009,226 58,192,779 695,285 901,869 770,393 45 Kigumo 4,812,017 5,765,939 12,395,997 4,507,903 3,209,563 4,164,010 46 Kikuyu 7,248,446 6,477,472 8,121,538 8,933,058 7,911,704 8,220,926 47 Kilgoris 6,470,283 6,241,580 7,058,463 1,660,042 1,240,775 1,814,842 48 Kilifi 4,136,158 4,661,178 4,534,892 8,369,178 6,708,410 5,505,769 49 Kilungu 15,461,892 12,842,022 25,075,174 4,747,675 4,069,748 4,659,906 50 Kimilili 2,045,674 5,225,502 6,440,780 2,783,402 1,863,804 1,975,375 51 Kisii 6,321,498 8,360,095 22,517,686 15,661,583 13,962,043 18,077,507 52 Kisumu 14,851,711 6,931,835 13,378,392 27,963,810 22,195,475 25,157,161 53 Kitale 19,598,314 17,043,659 31,840,157 9,740,072 10,292,817 11,719,850 54 Kithimani 5,548,683 6,127,468 9,813,662 3,562,136 3,273,170 4,054,954 55 Kitui 7,582,253 7,538,568 11,253,417 7,934,319 6,076,548 6,780,262 56 Kwale 4,583,639 8,385,910 18,927,057 5,994,497 4,861,012 6,775,298 57 Kyuso 915,773 1,163,700 3,546,794 426,427 489,273 541,950 Lamu - Magistrate Court 5,104,510 2,131,316 2,804,962 779,195 938,257 531,469 Lamu - Faza Kadhi Court - - - - - - 59 Limuru 9,236,190 7,181,059 11,965,206 10,448,965 6,463,580 7,759,018 60 Lodwar 3,263,603 2,199,557 2,538,517 676,672 547,370 355,880 61 Loitokitok 1,544,717 3,494,881 5,813,828 966,263 597,231 1,302,367 62 Machakos 18,133,979 10,693,070 20,190,595 24,398,678 19,096,858 24,312,704 63 Makadara 75,920,529 198,281,119 98,743,809 209,117 443,556 719,355 64 Makindu 16,620,241 13,113,940 25,193,119 6,827,180 6,366,468 7,184,257 65 Makueni 6,781,775 4,287,643 7,747,842 5,943,332 5,505,950 5,886,405 66 Malindi 6,354,588 5,311,979 6,690,523 14,153,857 12,601,059 14,928,864 Mandera - Magistrate Court 6,839,339 4,042,800 4,745,041 562,108 476,413 1,840,295 Mandera - Elwak Kadhi Court - - - 334,250 315,350 - Mandera - Tabaka Kadhi Court - - - 14,350 128,790 - 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 68 Maralal 3,239,055 1,912,610 1,859,761 593,752 482,496 560,691 69 Mariakani 8,040,611 8,593,476 19,002,488 4,389,799 3,870,664 4,614,694 70 Marimanti 2,168,541 1,728,606 1,795,720 1,567,615 714,249 714,076 71 Marsabit 2,753,396 2,810,497 1,698,048 981,494 915,985 1,385,191 72 Maseno 6,203,131 4,349,223 5,397,390 2,590,655 2,225,435 1,877,100 73 Maua 9,368,462 7,936,819 11,122,768 5,956,019 4,199,661 5,245,683 74 Mavoko 30,417,086 29,274,491 45,877,569 15,226,423 15,868,437 14,231,473 75 Mbita 3,730,548 3,332,052 4,878,645 1,184,846 892,270 973,044 76 Meru 7,958,572 10,771,755 18,474,682 14,200,267 11,926,361 15,326,689 77 Migori 6,439,184 2,953,736 5,120,340 6,838,836 5,774,184 7,330,828 Milimani Commercial Court - 80,000 40,000 202,186,594 201,825,611 229,491,369 79 Milimani ELRC - 700,000 - 9,343,546 7,765,873 9,750,153 Milimani Law Court 130,098,423 194,481,201 222,492,337 90,136,115 87,758,158 125,446,918 81 Molo 19,358,247 9,929,906 10,316,620 6,723,758 4,923,037 4,669,381 82 Mombasa 39,269,979 27,673,872 48,857,932 67,507,598 56,080,462 73,701,060 83 Moyale 5,212,879 6,877,224 7,476,817 607,728 457,969 482,255 Mpeketoni - Magistrate 763,202 230,710 616,489 474,991 373,270 381,055 Mpeketoni - Witu Kadhis Court - - - 198,055 58,375 - 85 Msambweni 3,722,830 3,473,743 - 1,932,926 1,091,929 - 86 Mukurwe-ini 2,576,564 1,242,335 2,965,844 903,294 973,068 1,073,150 87 Mumias 2,895,779 4,397,010 5,790,251 2,868,868 2,378,998 3,106,680 88 Murang’a 6,899,915 5,289,345 8,319,035 12,746,176 8,773,337 9,220,921 89 Mutomo 2,676,706 1,771,368 2,095,873 785,349 791,743 914,562 90 Mwingi 11,378,278 8,467,220 4,237,660 3,502,705 1,946,872 3,667,575 91 Naivasha 11,360,898 19,285,976 37,676,681 17,110,070 14,884,835 16,449,620 92 Nakuru 29,984,296 28,465,791 31,962,271 33,628,982 25,193,979 29,538,342 93 Nanyuki 13,799,503 7,683,103 18,026,635 5,499,102 4,311,911 5,699,849 94 Narok 8,888,119 8,381,964 12,603,914 6,669,794 5,826,793 8,390,815 95 Ndhiwa 1,414,999 1,905,667 1,059,270 1,383,807 952,974 1,408,504 96 Ngong 13,400,486 8,503,210 20,421,361 6,908,574 5,396,217 6,512,253 97 Nkubu 6,080,205 8,788,271 9,616,765 3,608,927 2,861,429 3,071,507 98 Nyahururu 11,085,197 11,654,502 12,122,751 9,936,316 7,584,882 8,904,550 99 Nyamira 12,967,640 7,770,633 9,594,104 4,452,859 3,723,246 3,253,048 100 Nyando 3,213,349 1,743,307 3,008,021 4,074,964 2,664,002 1,925,987 101 Nyeri 14,539,750 13,409,763 15,125,872 15,914,862 13,868,235 16,929,210 102 Ogembo 4,856,223 6,260,149 13,208,956 4,195,546 3,579,927 4,306,861 103 Othaya 1,783,164 1,487,256 1,930,943 1,825,352 1,039,946 1,461,458 104 Oyugis 6,419,774 5,158,839 6,643,043 5,525,770 4,197,770 3,662,242 105 Rongo 3,692,345 1,881,808 3,533,889 2,499,333 2,656,040 2,793,610 106 Ruiru 27,105,099 15,064,813 2,459,759 12,325,531 7,752,198 1,485,483 107 Runyenjes 13,299,903 3,541,496 7,078,776 2,191,605 2,202,379 1,783,185 108 Shanzu 13,253,928 12,206,759 23,760,774 51,445 93,550 86,585 109 Siakago 4,976,405 4,046,336 2,926,018 3,549,304 2,829,639 2,564,637 110 Siaya 4,845,904 3,964,009 5,343,010 4,651,393 3,613,018 3,841,016 111 Sirisia 1,829,193 3,118,006 4,893,854 993,347 740,637 1,083,413 112 Sotik 5,348,504 4,915,827 6,201,140 2,461,316 1,601,085 2,296,548 113 Tamu 1,897,079 1,162,392 1,513,239 1,287,416 902,995 821,479 114 Taveta 5,706,744 12,125,086 9,777,249 836,824 807,950 358,827 115 Tawa 1,289,420 941,232 2,047,296 1,870,247 1,648,998 2,001,471 116 Thika 40,094,273 24,429,258 55,567,925 21,421,155 17,302,915 24,009,108 117 Tigania 5,200,465 6,400,182 14,609,458 3,681,983 2,135,679 2,166,228 118 Tononoka 60,000 7,000 - 967,681 646,962 - 119 Tribunals - - - 17,177,162 23,366,595 - 120 Ukwala 5,139,844 3,543,700 4,099,274 1,724,725 1,743,579 1,607,349 121 Vihiga 3,114,579 2,477,665 5,793,465 3,932,044 3,123,825 2,850,754 122 Voi 10,702,282 7,126,052 10,372,870 5,856,421 4,849,568 5,534,252 Wajir - Magistrate 7,281,501 8,701,205 10,108,316 1,604,431 748,965 1,303,038 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6272 6272 Court Wajir - Eldas Kadhis Court - - - 27,975 13,855 - Wajir - Bute Kadhis Court - - - 89,420 76,020 - Wajir - Habaswein Kadhis Court - - - 52,300 87,975 - 124 Wang’uru 6,115,895 4,396,947 10,306,817 3,811,361 3,160,160 2,918,828 125 Webuye 5,358,793 5,637,157 8,362,815 2,463,814 2,259,991 2,339,947 126 Winam 6,858,879 5,398,782 6,438,412 2,216,124 1,934,291 2,176,355 127 Wundanyi 4,036,493 3,403,805 5,346,970 866,601 670,850 524,823 The top 10 collectors of fines for FY 2020/21 were Milimani, Makadara, Kibera, Thika, Mombasa, Kiambu, Mavoko, Nakuru, Ruiru and Eldoret Law Courts while top 10 collectors of fees were: Milimani Commercial, Milimani Law, Mombasa, Nakuru, Eldoret, Kisumu, Machakos, Thika, Tribunals and Naivasha Law Courts. 6.6 Court Deposits Court deposits are payments of funds or property to the court as a precautionary measure. Deposits are refunded at the conclusion of legal proceedings. Cash bail, bond (security), land title, log book, fixed deposit certificate, travel documents, and pay slips are all examples of deposits. Deposits management has improved in the past three financial years. Since the delinking of the management of financial matters from the Sub-County Treasuries, there has been greater efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and accountability in collection, refund and accounting for court deposits in the period under review. In order to finalize the de- linking from Sub-County Treasuries, ’ reconciliation of deposits were carried out in the majority of courts during this period to establish the correct deposits liability. In deposit collection and accounting, the Judiciary employs the Case Tracking System (CTS) and the Judiciary Financial Management Information System (JFMIS), while payments and refunds are processed through the KCB Quick Pay (Q-pay) electronic payment system. 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 Figure 6.7: Trends in amounts of deposits held by the Judiciary from FY2016/17 – 2020/21 The court deposits held by the Judiciary have progressively increased from KSh4.37 billion in FY 2016/17 to KSh6.8 billion in FY 2020/21. Table 6.9 details the funds held as cash bails in each court station as at the end of the FY 2020-2021 and the percentage change in this amount as compared to the FY 2019/2020. Table 6.9: Court Deposits held by court stations and end of FY 2020/21 No Station Name FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 Change KShs %age KShs KShs 1. Baricho 12,436,912 14,940,775 2,503,863 17% 2. Bomet 17,195,854 19,370,265 2,174,411 11% 3. Bondo 2,967,321 3,481,321 514,000 15% 4. Bungoma 26,672,811 24,683,325 (1,989,487) -8% 5. Busia 16,873,176 26,813,416 9,940,240 37% 6. Butali 7,683,138 9,476,632 1,793,494 19% 7. Butere 3,073,810 2,367,309 (706,501) -30% 8. Chuka 17,046,151 18,212,494 1,166,343 6% 9. Dadaab - 195,000 195,000 - 10. Eldama Ravine 19,546,105 17,814,657 (1,731,448) -10% 11. Eldoret 92,132,719 119,254,991 27,122,273 23% 12. Embu 33,678,307 29,313,675 (4,364,632) -15% 13. Engineer 11,807,112 12,939,512 1,132,400 9% 14. Garissa 19,822,559 21,007,841 1,185,282 6% 15. Garsen 3,819,641 2,810,335 (1,009,306) -36% 16. Gatundu 17,065,433 19,508,993 2,443,560 13% 17. Gichugu 6,095,508 9,701,308 3,605,800 37% 18. Githongo 3,423,529 4,305,290 881,760 20% 20. Hamisi 2,740,878 3,536,010 795,132 22% 21. Hola 1,135,060 1,755,985 620,925 35% 22. Homa Bay 13,272,391 13,168,391 (104,000) -1% 23. Isiolo 22,649,745 22,441,089 (208,657) -1% 6,715,512 6,801,785 5,126,896 4,367,834 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 24. Iten 4,842,624 4,357,624 (485,000) -11% 25. JKIA 10,628,400 15,926,400 5,298,000 33% 26. Kabarnet 3,089,669 3,640,585 550,916 15% 27. Kahawa - 1,885,000 1,885,000 - 28. Kajiado 161,990,014 170,731,500 8,741,486 5% 29. Kakamega 27,198,258 28,933,776 1,735,518 6% 30. Kakuma 1,743,000 2,288,000 545,000 24% 31. Kaloleni 3,165,457 4,706,737 1,541,280 33% 32. Kandara 17,861,441 19,049,797 1,188,356 6% 33. Kangema 7,448,334 8,147,554 699,220 9% 34. Kangundo 12,120,726 18,968,086 6,847,360 36% 35. Kapenguria 4,707,915 6,435,693 1,727,778 27% 36. Kapsabet 18,106,395 23,360,030 5,253,634 22% 37. Karatina 10,555,311 10,198,811 (356,500) -3% 38. Kehancha 3,708,664 5,087,916 1,379,252 27% 39. Kericho 42,098,207 41,458,737 (639,469) -2% 41. Kerugoya 17,066,792 22,644,180 5,577,388 25% 42. Kiambu 146,543,683 172,155,010 25,611,327 15% 44. Kigumo 22,269,967 26,890,286 4,620,319 17% 45. Kikuyu 42,413,150 49,236,487 6,823,337 14% 46. Kilgoris 9,369,306 11,622,306 2,253,000 19% 47. Kilifi 25,781,127 30,092,401 4,311,274 14% 48. Kilungu 3,036,602 2,907,752 (128,850) -4% 49. Kimilili 7,155,120 6,956,738 (198,382) -3% 50. Kisii 29,659,340 34,654,242 4,994,902 14% 51. Kisumu 51,202,199 72,100,335 20,898,136 29% 52. Kitale 24,872,975 37,162,994 12,290,020 33% 53. Kithimani 16,315,631 18,769,326 2,453,694 13% 54. Kitui 36,732,634 39,045,768 2,313,134 6% 55. Kwale 26,765,321 28,560,419 1,795,098 6% 56. Kyuso 1,340,400 1,293,500 (46,900) -4% 57. Lamu 10,352,173 11,626,020 1,273,847 11% 58. Limuru 31,548,906 32,524,316 975,410 3% 59. Lodwar 5,369,368 7,097,868 1,728,500 24% 60. Loitokitok 912,500 1,384,500 472,000 34% 61. Machakos 79,180,206 85,610,004 6,429,798 8% 62. Makadara 370,877,821 398,486,733 27,608,912 7% 64. Makueni 15,605,738 14,648,265 (957,473) -7% 65. Malindi 91,304,951 88,089,875 (3,215,076) -4% 66. Mandera 2,257,275 1,303,775 (953,500) -73% 67. Mararal 2,885,732 3,143,201 257,469 8% 68. Mariakani 21,252,175 26,096,818 4,844,643 19% 69. Marimanti 2,455,000 2,992,000 537,000 18% 70. Marsabit 22,202,119 20,706,894 (1,495,225) -7% 71. Maseno 6,002,039 7,057,184 1,055,146 15% 72. Maua 32,350,165 28,684,867 (3,665,298) -13% 73. Mavoko 68,189,764 84,757,320 16,567,556 20% 74. Mbita 3,251,444 3,413,275 161,831 5% 75. Meru 46,502,831 55,852,489 9,349,658 17% 76. Migori 13,035,686 16,271,210 3,235,524 20% 77. Milimani Law Court 2,329,131,409 2,090,289,472 (238,841,938) -11% 78 Milimani Commercial Court 215,484,697 218,412,931 2,928,234 1% 79 Molo 48,021,663 57,570,414 9,548,751 17% 80 Mombasa 303,736,584 330,143,120 26,406,536 8% 81 Mutomo 5,186,639 1,560,384 (3,626,255) -232% 82 Moyale 3,709,890 4,027,890 318,000 8% 83 Mpeketoni 1,122,000 1,524,000 402,000 26% 85. Mukurweini 1,966,999 1,806,525 (160,474) -9% 86. Mumias 8,378,724 7,679,073 (699,651) -9% 88. Mwingi 11,139,344 19,340,198 8,200,854 42% 89. Naivasha 105,833,505 103,333,982 (2,499,523) -2% 90. Nakuru 226,929,620 249,677,028 22,747,408 9% 91. Nanyuki 29,335,929 34,206,171 4,870,242 14% 92. Narok 24,758,502 35,758,017 10,999,514 31% 93. Ndhiwa 1,393,500 1,699,944 306,444 18% 94. Ngong 37,129,858 47,377,202 10,247,344 22% 95. Nkubu 8,119,551 8,675,207 555,656 6% 96. Nyahururu 37,680,018 42,897,086 5,217,068 12% 97. Nyamira 17,044,996 14,004,171 (3,040,825) -22% 98. Nyando 3,548,628 3,392,628 (156,000) -5% 99. Nyeri 58,834,522 61,390,152 2,555,630 4% 100. Ogembo 15,136,485 23,928,823 8,792,338 37% 101. Othaya 2,159,445 1,612,437 (547,008) -34% 102. Oyugis 3,629,200 4,882,700 1,253,500 26% 103. Rongo 3,504,846 4,446,105 941,260 21% 104. Ruiru 9,708,000 13,081,813 3,373,813 26% 106. Shanzu 95,991,736 111,408,236 15,416,500 14% 107. Siakago 12,356,540 14,093,440 1,736,900 12% 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6274 6274 11.89 billion 11.51 billion 108. Siaya 12,661,526 14,785,261 2,123,735 14% 109. Sirisia 2,845,379 4,770,249 1,924,870 40% 110. Sotik 4,817,105 6,469,605 1,652,500 26% 111. Tamu 1,095,500 1,464,500 369,000 25% 112. Taveta 2,159,045 1,856,045 (303,000) -16% 113. Tawa 3,738,772 4,323,773 585,001 14% 114. Thika 128,092,455 120,426,451 (7,666,004) -6% 115. Tigania 10,549,969 10,939,769 389,800 4% 116. Tononoka 398,000 618,000 220,000 36% 117. Tribunals 40,366,926 39,804,781 (562,145) -1% 118. Ukwala 2,453,268 3,367,190 913,923 27% 119. Vihiga 6,029,378 6,015,242 (14,136) 0% 120. Voi 15,682,563 12,118,505 (3,564,059) -29% 121. Wajir 3,343,540 3,544,000 200,460 6% 122. Wang’uru 7,679,152 5,720,497 (1,958,655) -34% 123. Webuye 10,966,648 12,477,185 1,510,537 12% 124. Winam 14,637,156 13,977,366 (659,790) -5% 125. Wundanyi 2,588,740 1,939,682 (649,058) -33% 126. Supreme Court /Court of Appeal/ HQs 585,984,121 533,606,921 (52,377,200) -10% Total 6,715,511,638 6,801,784,997 86,273,359 1% Table 6.9 shows that the outstanding deposits during FY 2020/21 increased marginally by one per cent from KSh6.72 billion in FY 2019/20 to KSh6.80 billion in FY 2020/21. 6.7 Monetary Value of Cases Handled Through Court Annexed Mediation The value of the matters that were settled through Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) was KSh382 million. The growth in value of matters referred to CAM over time is illustrated in Figure 6.8. 6.98 billion FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 Figure 6.8: Trend of monetary value of matters settled through mediation The monetary amount that has been released back to the economy has shown a positive trajectory from KSh6.98 billion in FY 2018/19 to KSh11.51 billion in 2019/20 to KSh11.89 billion in FY 2020/21. The mild growth during the period under review is attributed to the reduced settlement of matters through the mainstream court process during the COVID-19 pandemic. Detailed statistics on monetary value of matters handled under CAM are presented in Table 6.10. Table 6.10: Monetary value of matters referred to mediation, FY 2020/21 No. Court name Cumulative value of matters referred to mediation as at 30th June Value of matters referred to mediation, FY 2020/21 Cumulative value of matters referred to mediation as at 30th June 2021 Cumulative value of matters with settlement agreements as at 30th June Value of matters with settlement agreements, FY 2020/21 Cumulative value of matters with settlement agreements as at 30th June HIGH COURT 1 Eldoret 1,685,114,162 434,090,000 2,119,204,162 719,317,282 24,700,000 744,017,282 2 Embu 747,867 3,100,000 3,847,867 40,167 2,100,000 2,140,167 3 Garissa 731,419 - 731,419 556,000 - 556,000 4 Kakamega 327,163,048 102,500,000 429,663,048 70,574,219 32,441,902 103,016,121 5 Kerugoya - 26,000,000 26,000,000 - 4,000,000 4,000,000 6 Kisii 380,488 12,459,400 12,839,888 - 18,107,108 18,107,108 7 Kisumu 265,864,884 344,000,000 609,864,884 13,261,353 - 13,261,353 8 Machakos 187,309,123 158,300,000 345,609,123 66,879,006 - 66,879,006 9 Malindi 15,669,663 20,000,000 35,669,663 - - - 10 Milimani Civil Division 995,254,234 195,300,000 1,190,554,234 1,509,150 - 1,509,150 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 11 Milimani Commercial Division 24,347,675,688 1,367,000,000 25,714,675,688 3,531,243,120 216,530,836 3,747,773,956 Milimani Family Division 12,910,945,835 503,300,000 13,414,245,835 4,936,821,914 10,562,480 4,947,384,394 13 Mombasa 59,953,326 16,649,288 76,602,614 - - - 14 Nakuru 135,989,981 1,844,278 137,834,259 3,894,123 - 3,894,123 15 Nyamira 4,687,500 - 4,687,500 2,222,222 - 2,222,222 16 Nyeri 1,006,585,018 3,108,000,000 4,114,585,018 1,061,944,436 17,352,645 1,079,297,081 Total High Courts 41,944,072,236 6,292,542,966 48,236,615,202 10,408,262,992 325,794,971 10,734,057,963 Eldoret - - - - - - 2 Kisumu 74,093,492 - 74,093,492 - - - 3 Milimani 1,805,124,869 170,400,000 1,975,524,869 242,684,818 39,293,890 281,978,708 4 Mombasa 9,992,221 150,000 10,142,221 - - - 5 Nyeri 41,253,484 314,814 41,568,298 11,669,719 - 11,669,719 Total ELRC 1,930,464,066 170,864,814 2,101,328,880 254,354,537 39,293,890 293,648,427 ELC 1 Eldoret - - - - - - 2 Embu 923,836 - 923,836 40,167 - 40,167 3 Garissa 4 Kakamega 59,484,191 12,500,000 71,984,191 9,537,057 5,733,918 15,270,975 5 Kerugoya - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - 6 Kisii 1,078,048 - 1,078,048 - - - 7 Kisumu 58,838,950 - 58,838,950 2,340,239 - 2,340,239 8 Machakos 51,671,482 - 51,671,482 - - - 9 Malindi - - - - - - 10 Milimani 768,454,645 585,100,000 1,353,554,645 - - - 11 Mombasa 26,645,923 - 26,645,923 - - - 12 Nyeri 90,757,666 - 90,757,666 11,669,719 - 11,669,719 Total ELC 1,057,854,741 598,600,000 1,656,454,741 23,587,182 5,733,918 29,321,100 MAGISTRATE’S COURTS 1 Eldoret 1,327,665,703 10,160,265 1,337,825,968 553,320,987 4,922,000 558,242,987 2 Embu 1,539,727 2,802,205 4,341,932 160,667 2,471,600 2,632,267 3 Garissa - - - - - - 4 Kakamega 90,791,659 335,000 91,126,659 20,981,525 452,678 21,434,203 5 Kerugoya - 4,000,000 4,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 6 Kisii 2,441,463 - 2,441,463 - - - 7 Kisumu 82,810,374 - 82,810,374 14,821,512 - 14,821,512 8 Machakos - - - - - 9 Malindi 33,750,044 445,078 34,195,122 - - - 10 Milimani Children’s 66,264,697 - 66,264,697 8,833,262 - 8,833,262 11 Milimani Commercial 103,184,618 2,227,059 105,411,677 23,762,645 - 23,762,645 12 Mombasa MC 346,396,997 24,250,547 370,647,544 22,507,726 - 22,507,726 13 Nakuru MC 123,038,555 789,888 123,828,443 11,682,368 750,000 12,432,368 14 Nyamira MC 55,312,500 - 55,312,500 17,777,778 - 17,777,778 15 Nyeri MC 280,523,693 250,000 280,773,693 151,706,348 377,231 152,083,579 Siakago MC - 4,000,000 4,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 17 Tononoka MC - - - - - - Total Magistrate’s Courts 2,513,720,030 49,260,042 2,562,980,072 825,554,818 10,973,509 836,528,327 Grand Total All Courts 47,446,111,073 7,111,267,822 54,557,378,895 11,511,759,529 381,796,288 11,893,555,817 The total cumulative value of matters referred to mediation stood at KSh54.6 billion at the end of FY 2020/21, up from KSh47.4 billion at the end of FY 2019/20. The value of matters that were referred to mediation in the FY 2020/21 was Ksh7.1 billion down from KSh13.5 billion for the matters referred to CAM in the previous period. The cumulative value of matters with settlement agreements stood at KSh11.9 billion at the end of the FY 2020/21 up from KSh11.5 billion that was recorded at the end of the FY 2019/20. 6.8 Management of pending Bills The Judiciary has continued to apply prudent measures to ensure minimal accumulation of pending bills and in each financial year prioritises the payment of pending bills as a first charge unless there is a limited budget. Table 6.11 shows the level of pending bills held at the end of the last two financial years. Table 6.11: Pending bills at close of financial years FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 Change KShs % Description Kshs Kshs Development Pending Bills 76,730,898 332,483,560 255,752,662 330% Recurrent Pending Bills 711,933,892 206,940,266.67 (504,993,625) (71%) Recurrent & Development 788,664,790 539,423,826 (249,240,964) (32%) Court Awards & Arbitration - 1,138,713,450 1,138,713,450 >100% Total 788,664,790 1,678,137,276 889,472,486 >100% 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6276 6276 The pending bills under the development budget increased by KSh255.8 million from KSh76.7 million in FY 2019/20 to KSh332.4 million. This was mainly due to budget cuts on the development budget that affected the implementation of ICT infrastructure projects. In addition, liabilities arose from court and tribunal arbitration awards to suppliers due to delayed payments for development projects. These could not be settled due to limited budgetary allocation thus leading to pending bills. The recurrent pending bills reduced from KSh711.9 million in FY 2019/20 to KSh206.9 million in FY 2020/21 being a reduction of KSh505 million. This reduction was achieved through stringent measures to ensure suppliers were paid on time. However, budget cuts in the recurrent budget resulted in pending bills at the end of the financial year. 6.9 Automation of Revenue, Expenditure and Deposits Management The Judiciary uses the JFMIS as the operational system for accounting in all the court stations. The system has undergone continued improvement and links with CTS at court registries thus providing convergence of information that ensures seamless collections, e-receipting and accounting for revenue, deposits and court expenditure. The JFMIS further provides compatible information for loading court station financial information into IFMIS. This ensures all Judiciary financial information is centrally collated for reporting and use by management. The automation of registry and accounting processes has reduced instances of misappropriation of revenue, deposits and expenditure. 6.10 The Judiciary Fund Article 173 of the Constitution establishes the Judiciary Fund. It requires the Judiciary’s estimates of expenditure approved by the National Assembly become a direct charge to the Consolidated Fund and that the funds be paid directly into the Judiciary Fund. The enactment of the Judiciary Fund Act 2016 and its regulations in 2019 laid the ground for operationalisation of the Fund. There have been ongoing engagements between the Judiciary, the National Treasury, the Ministry of ICT, Controller of Budget, and the Central Bank of Kenya to operationalise the Judiciary Fund. 6.11 Challenges Insufficient Funding The Judiciary has been underfunded over the years: where its allocation has consistently been less than half of the resource requirements. This budget shortfall has affected administration of justice in key areas such as construction of courts, facilitation of benches to hear cases, and the operationalisation of the Small Claims Courts, and full implementation of the Court Annexed Mediation and Alternative Justice Systems in all courts. Additionally, service weeks, pro bono services, mobile courts and circuits have been scaled down in order to fit within the limited resources. The Judiciary is also unable to recruit adequate number of judges, judicial officers and staff that are required to effectively handle the workload since the current staffing levels fall below the optimal number as per the Judiciary establishment. 6.12 Recommendations To sustain and build on the successes that have already been achieved, the Judiciary recommends the following measures be undertaken during the coming MTEF period: increase resource allocation to Judiciary to facilitate the recruitment of the required human resources at all levels; expand and complete court infrastructure in all the counties for the High Court and courts of equal status; support digitisation of court processes and automation of registry operations; facilitate court programmes such as mobile courts, ADR, AJS and the roll out of the of Small Claims Courts into the counties including recruitment and facilitation of Adjudicators. CHAPTER 7—AGENCY COLLOBORATION IN THE JUSTICE SECTOR 7.0 Introduction The justice sector comprises several institutions and agencies that must work together in a highly coordinated manner so as to ensure that they execute their mandate and provide efficient and quality service delivery. In the criminal justice sector, offenders are apprehended by police in the upstream and then taken to court downstream where the prosecutors prosecute cases and advocates play the representation function. In some instances, offenders are put on probation bringing into the play the Probation Department while children officers are involved where there are children in conflict with the law. Upon conviction, offenders are then taken to prison for custody. This scenario articulates the inter-institutional linkages and demonstrates the need for the agencies to team up for effective administration of justice. 7.1 The National Council on Administration of Justice NCAJ is mandated to coordinate the administration of justice and reforms in the justice sector in an efficient, effective, and consultative manner. This is done through the formulation of policies as well as the implementation and evaluation of various strategies aimed at proper administration of justice. During the period under review, the Council deliberated on key issues and programmes aimed at enhancing the expeditious delivery of Justice, and on emerging challenges to the administration of justice. Among these was the COVID- 19 pandemic which emerged in the third quarter of FY 2019/20 and continued to adversely affect service delivery during the reporting period. The NCAJ became an important platform for inter-agency collaboration on justice sector responses to the pandemic. The Council held two meetings to address the impact of the pandemic on the dispensation of justice and appointed an ad hoc committee with representatives from all justice sector institutions to monitor the situation. The NCAJ sub-committee on the administration of justice to monitor the administrative and contigency management plan to mitigate covid-19 in Kenya’s justice sector chaired by Hon. Justice William Ouko held three meetings during the reporting period to review and advise the Council on the policy directions that were issued by the Council on containing the pandemic. At court level, the Court Users Committees (CUCs) also organised several meetings to deliberate on localised strategies for ensuring continuity in service delivery while observing the health and safety of all court users. 7.2 Reports from NCAJ Committees Through the Secretariat, the NCAJ also coordinated activities aimed at fostering partnerships among different agencies through the various thematic Technical and Special Working Committees. The work of some of these committees is presented below. 7.2.1 National Steering Committee on Implementation of Alternative Justice Systems Policy (NaSCI-AJS) Article 159 of the Constitution requires the Judiciary to promote traditional dispute resolution mechanisms among other alternative forms of dispute resolution. Pursuant to this directive, Chief Justice (Rtd) Dr. Willy Mutunga appointed the Taskforce on Alternative Justice Systems (AJS Taskforce) to develop recommendations and measures to be taken in order to mainstream alternative justice systems in the administration of justice while ensuring respect for human rights, especially the rights of women, youth and people living with disabilities. The Taskforce concluded its work during the reporting period, coming up with the Alternative Justice Systems Baseline Policy and the AJS Framework Policy. The Hon. Chief Justice David Maraga launched both policies on 27th August 2020, a date that was deliberately chosen to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The two policy documents are crucial in Unbundling the meaning of Article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution of Kenya. They have offered clarity on the duties of the Judiciary and other stakeholders with respect to AJS mechanisms towards advancing the requirements of the Constitution. This way, the AJS Policy makes a significant contribution to the current strategic commitment of the Judiciary to advance its transformation. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE The launch of these policies marked the beginning of mainstreaming AJS. Following this launch, the Chief Justice appointed a committee to oversee the implementation of the AJS Policy. The National Steering Committee on Implementation was mandated to cascade the AJS policy at the county levels with the aid of County Action Plans; enhance the role of CUCs in coordinating and linking AJS initiatives at the county levels; accelerate socialisation of the various AJS mechanisms in the country with the human rights minimum core content as defined by the Constitution of Kenya; and develop guidelines and monitoring mechanisms that shall enhance the work of the various AJS initiatives and their innovative models in the counties. As part of this mandate the Committee undertook the following during the reporting period: • Developed an operational plan based on the concentric model of outreach and development of the AJS County Action Plans. • Distributed 1,000 copies of the policy with the support of PLEAD through UNODC to raise awareness on the existence of the AJS Policy. • Conducted a sensitisation session for members of the Lands Committee in Turkana County In partnership with the County Government of Turkana, the National Land Commission and Pamoja Trust. Kituo Cha Sheria conducted a similar awareness session for actors involved in AJS in Trans Nzoia County. • Developed a detailed training curriculum on AJS that shall be used in training judicial officers as well as AJS champions who work mainly with non-State actors. The training aims to model AJS and promote the use of AJS models at the County level. • In partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the County Government of Kajiado and the National Land Commission, the Committee has developed an AJS model that is aimed at resolving 2,740 land cases that have been pending for over five years. The Committee together with Justice actors in Kajiado, established 10 AJS panels in Kajiado South (Irkisonko), Kajiado Central (Matapato), Kajiado Central (Ildamat), Kajiado Central (Purko 1), Kajiado Central (Dalalekutuk), Kajiado West (Purko 2 Mosiro), Kajiado West (Keekonyokie), Kajiado West (Iloodokilani), Kajiado East (Ilkaputei), Kajiado North (Cosmopolitan). 7.2.2 Special Working Group on Anti-Illicit Trade The Committee was established and mandated to develop an Enforcement Manual to Combat Illicit Trade in Kenya which will be a quick one-point-of-reference for organised officers on matters of illicit trade. During the review period, sensitisation forums were conducted across the country where 400 enforcement officers were trained about illicit trade. The Committee developed the 2nd Enforcement Manual, to serve as a quick reference point on matters of illicit trade including protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. It is intended as an aid for law enforcement agencies, including those involved in the prosecution of crimes related to illicit trade and the enforcement of the laws against offenders. The manual is also a useful resource for investigators, courts and the general public. It aims to create awareness of the problem and the existing mechanisms for reporting and handling cases when they occur. The retired Hon. Chief Justice David Maraga launched the manuals which was then followed by a series of virtual training for judges and magistrates on various forms of illicit trade in Kenya. 7.2.3 National Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms The National Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms (NCCJR) was established in June 2017 as a multi-agency initiative to spearhead comprehensive review and reform of Kenya’s entire criminal justice system and to oversee the full implementation of the findings and recommendations of the “Audit Report on Criminal Justice System in Kenya.” During the period under review; the Committee: • Conducted extensive stakeholder engagements to identify the legal, institutional, administrative and financial barriers that impede the efficient functioning of the criminal justice system. • Reviewed Kenya’s penal laws and prepared draft Bills with proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code. • Developed publications and other resource material intended for use and creation of awareness for practitioners within the criminal justice system to narrow the gap between law and practice and ensure compliance with human rights and the rule of law. The resource materials included; The National Policy on Criminal Justice in Kenya, Law and Practice Guidelines on Arrest and Conditions of Pre-trial Detention; Law and Practice Guidelines on the Management of the Petty Offenders; Fair Trial Guide and Checklist; Report on the Status of Persons with Mental Illness in the Criminal Justice System; Report on the Status of Intersex Persons in the Criminal Justice System; and Baseline Survey on State Regulated Offences. • Held strategic engagement with the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Defence, and the legal team from Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) with the view to deepening the Committee’s understanding and appreciation of KDF operations and the Court Martial process. Flowing from this engagement, the Committee is now working on validation of the Court Martial Rules of Procedure and Appeals Rules. • Engaged with representatives from the Kenya Police Service Reforms Office and experts and further engaged with police officers and prosecutors drawn from Nakuru, Isiolo, Marsabit, Meru, Samburu, Kitui, Mwingi, Kwale, Mombasa, Kilifi, Lamu and Tana River. The focus was on the findings of the Audit Report and on the criminal justice reform initiative. The key areas of deliberation included: pre-trial processes (investigation, evidence, arrest, detention, arraignment, 24hr rule); petty & State regulated offences; emerging issues: gender mainstreaming, GBV, intersex, children and mental health; victim and witness handling; police excesses and interagency collaboration. • Engaged representatives from the Witness Protection Agency (WPA) and the Victim Protection Board (VPB) on handling and protection of victims and witnesses, and the review of laws and policies related to them. The discussions also covered the need to fast-track the development of the Victims’ Rights Charter and facilitate civic education to actors in the criminal justice sector when handling vulnerable victims of crime. Further, the prominence of embracing the virtual platform and harnessing the use of technology to expedite the hearing of cases was deliberated. 7.2.4 Special Working Committee on Traffic The Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure Housing, Urban Development and Public Works established the Taskforce on Minor Traffic Offences Instant Fines System in 2016 and mandated it to: Propose appropriate reforms to the legal, policy and institutional framework for the development and operationalisation of a minor traffic offences instant fines system; Consider and propose appropriate mechanisms for the payment of instant fines for minor traffic offences; and undertake public participation for the proposed statutory instrument. The Task Force was subsequently absorbed into NCAJ as a Special Working Committee on Traffic with the objective of streamlining the handling of traffic matters towards enhancing road safety, eradicating corruption and corrupt practices and ensuring expediency, certainty and convenience of road traffic offenders and other road users. 7.2.5 Special Task Force on Children Matters The NCAJ Special Taskforce on Children Matters was mandated to address gaps in the administration of justice with regard to children, focusing on legislation, policy, procedural and practice directions reforms, compilation of data, monitoring of infrastructure and co- ordination of all the actors. The Taskforce achieved the following during FY 2020/21: 1. Published resource materials aimed at streamlining the administration of justice for children. These are: Curriculum for Child Protection Officers; Diversion Toolkit, Child Protection Units Standard Operating Procedures; the Children Court Practice Directions; and Policy on Mandatory Continuous Professional 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6278 6278 % % Development Programme. 2. Sensitised 5 CUCs from Western Kenya on the Status Report on Children in the Justice System in Kenya iIn collaboration with the CUC Working Group. 4. Provided input in the Disrupting Harm Report which was done by UNICEF Innocenti. The Disrupting Harm project was established to generate high-quality evidence on technology- facilitated sexual exploitation and abuse of children. It is a 14- country research project conducted in partnership with ECPAT International and INTERPOL, funded by the Global Partnership to End Violence against Children. The report highlights the recommendations to ensure online child protection. It also sets out actions to be executed by the child justice sector to protect children who are vulnerable to online child sexual abuse and exploitation. 6. Trained 30 prosecutors from various regions in the country on handling children cases using plea bargaining and diversion. The training also covered categories of children, introduction to the P&C form, child trafficking cases, psychology of children and developmental stages. 8. Involved in costing of the Children Bill which was undertaken by consultants who were engaged by UNICEF to document budgeting practices in child justice agencies. 9. Donated 14 laptops, 1,120 litres of hand sanitizer and 840 bars of soap to the Directorate of Children Services courtesy of the EU funded PLEAD Project. 10. Held a consultative forum with the Zimbabwe Judicial Service Commission on lessons learnt and the best way of handling children during the pandemic. 11. Participated in the development of the National Plan of Action on Child Online Protection. 7.2.6 Special Working Group on (Court Users Committees) The Court Users Committees CUCs are institutionalised in Section 35 of the Judicial Service Act (No. 1 of 2011) under the NCAJ of Justice. The CUCs bring together justice actors and users of the justice system at the station level to enhance public participation, stakeholder engagement, develop public understanding of court operations and promote effective justice sector partnerships. They work towards a coordinated, efficient, effective and consultative approach in the administration of justice at each station. There are 127 CUCs at the Magistracy and 42 County CUCs already established. The following achievements were realised during the period under review:- 1. Three new CUCs were established and operationalised during the reporting period. These are Kahawa Law Courts, Sports Disputes Tribunal and HIV & Aids Tribunal. The Special Working Group (SWG) inducted the members of these CUCs on the mandate, procedures and operations of CUCs. The induction also covered the mandate of NCAJ, CUC trends in the last 10 years, CUC guidelines and the reporting requirements for the quarterly meetings. 2. The SWG conducted a sampling survey within various CUCs to determine the ICT needs of justice agencies. With regard to up-scaling of court operations, court users lauded the COVID-19 management measures that were put in place as well as the increased utilization of online services by a majority of the justice sector actors. However, various challenges were noted in the use and uptake of ICT and as such most court users preferred to hold physical meetings as opposed to virtual ones. This is partly due to insufficiency of ICT equipment and limited internet accessibility. Some of the other challenges related to ICT were: limited availability of ICT equipment resulting in employees utilizing their personal equipment and even airtime; disparity in availability of ICT resources between agencies; and unstable internet connections. Going forward, NCAJ plans to undertake a comprehensive needs assessment on ICT status covering available hardware, software, systems, training needs, integration of systems, among other issues. There is need to enhance funding for coordinated growth of ICT uptake and skills development so as to ensure better interoperability. 4. The membership of the CUC Special Working Group was revamped and reconstituted to include representation from all justice agencies. The terms of reference and mandate of the working group were drafted and the induction for new members conducted. 5. The Standard Operating Guidelines on Sexual and Gender Based Violence (GBV) Case Management were developed which focus on prevention and response to sexual gender-based violence management within the justice sector especially in times of crisis. The Guidelines were necessitated by the reported increase in SGBV cases across the country. 6. Jointly with the National Legal Aid Service, the working group championed the sensitisation on the National Legal Aid Act 2016 (No.6 of 2016) and the Legal Aid Regulations 2020. The NLAS was co-opted into various CUCs. Further, the forum allowed the CUCs to address the challenges faced with provision of legal aid services for the indigent. The forums were held in various CUCs in Nairobi, Mandera, Wajir, Lamu, Isiolo Kisumu, Garsen, Mombasa, Eldoret, Marsabit, Nakuru and Garissa. The National Legal Aid Service also committed to open offices in the respective counties.Fifteen percent of CUCs conducted trainings for members of the public on various topics including on AJS, sexual offences and gender based violence and the Children s Act 2001 ( No. 8 of 2001). Twenty three percent of the CUCs requested to have training on various topics targeted at various justice actors. The SWG conducted spot checks aimed at assessing and consolidating best practices and emerging policy concerns for tabling to the NCAJ. The checks were done in Bomet, Tamu, Hamisi, Winam, Machakos and Kerugoya, Kandara and Gatundu Law Court CUC. 7.2.6.1 Reports from CUC Quarterly Meetings by CUCs in FY 2020/21 The CUCs are required to conduct a minimum of four quarterly meetings each year. Eighty six percent of the CUCs met this requirement as demonstrated below. 4 meetings and above Less than 4 meetings 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 7.1: Percentage of CUCs that held the required minimum of 4 CUC meetings During the period under review, a total of 536 CUC meetings were held across courts. The details on the number of meetings per court are given on Table 1. Table 7.1: Number of CUC meetings held, FY 2020/21 Law Court No. of CUC Meetings held Law Court NO. of CUC Meetings held Baricho 4 Makindu 4 Bomet 4 Makueni 4 Bondo 4 Malindi 4 Bungoma 2 Mandera 5 Busia 7 Mararal 4 Butali 4 Mariakani 4 Butere 15 Marimanti 4 Chuka 5 Marsabit 4 City Court 2 Maseno 4 Daadab 5 Maua 6 Eldama Ravine 4 Mavoko 5 Eldoret 5 Mbita 4 Embu 3 Meru 4 Engineer 4 Migori 4 Garissa 5 Mil.Anti-Corruption 2 Garsen 6 Mil. Commercial 4 Gatundu 5 Mil. Children’s 4 Gichugu 4 Milimani 4 Githongo 5 Molo 4 Githunguri 4 Mombasa 4 Hamisi 4 Moyale 4. Hola 4 Mpeketoni 5 Homa-Bay 4 Msambweni 4 Isiolo 5 Mukurwe-ini 5 Iten 4 Mumias 5 JKIA 3 Murang’a 5 Kabarnet 4 Mutomo 4 Kahawa 4 Mwingi 4 Kajiado 3 Naivasha 2 Kakamega Nakuru 4 Kakuma 4 Nanyuki 4 Kaloleni 4 Narok 5 Kandara 4 Ndhiwa 4 Kangema 2 Ngong 4 Kangundo 4 Nkubu 4 Kapenguria 4 Nyahururu 4 Kapsabet 20 Nyamira 4 Karatina 4 Nyando 3 Kehancha 4 Nyeri 9 Kericho 6 Ogembo 3 Keroka 5 Othaya 4 Kerugoya 5 Oyugis 5 Kiambu 4 Rongo 4 Kibera 4 Ruiru 4 Kigumo 1 Runyenjes 4 Kikuyu 3 Shanzu 6 Kilgoris Siakago 4 Kilifi 3 Siaya 4 Kilungu 4 Sirisia 4 Kimilili 4 Sotik 3 Kisii 4 Tamu 4 Kisumu Taveta 4 Kitale 4 Tawa 4 Kithimani 4 Thika 6 Kitui 3 Tigania 3 Gichugu 4 Milimani 4 Kwale 4 Tononoka 4 Kyuso 4 Ukwala 2 Lamu 8 Vihiga 4 Limuru 3 Voi 4 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6280 6280 Lodwar 4 Wajir 6 Loitoktok 4 Wang’uru 4 Machakos 1 Webuye 4 Makadara 5 Winam 4 Wundanyi 4 TOTAL 536 7.2.6.2 Achievements by Court User Committees The CUCs help ensure a coordinated, efficient, effective and consultative approach in the administration of justice, providing an avenue to address matters in the administration of justice while enhancing public participation and stakeholder engagement. Below are some of the key milestones that were realised by various CUCs during the period. • Improved relationship between court users and stakeholders. • Better coordination of stakeholders leading to expeditious delivery of justice. • Coordinated approach of handling clients during the COVID-19 pandemic. • Reduction of prison and remand population following coordinated plea-bargain, reduced sentences and reduced bond/bail terms. • Enhanced maintenance, rehabilitation and construction of infrastructure for the justice sec- tor institutions. • Training on a multi-sectoral approach to addressing SGBV. • Participation in diverse celebrations for instance Day of the African Child on 16 th June, 2021. • Inter-institutional sharing of work equipment like laptops, modems, printing materials among other materials. • Lobbying of funds and land for construction of justice sector agencies offices at grassroots level. • Holding of Service Weeks. • Holding of community dialogue forums for instance with boda boda leaders and legal aware- ness on drug and sexual offences in schools. • Coordinated destruction of dangerous exhibits especially illicit alcohol and drugs. • Coordinated training of personnel in the justice sector. • Reduced growth of case backlog in courts due to joint backlog clearance efforts. • Holding of team building exercise with representation from various agencies. • Improved administration of justice through minimised adjournment of cases. • Improved knowledge of the court processes among stakeholders and the public. • Improved court attendance by the relevant parties. • Increased uptake of IT in proceedings and virtual hearings. • Improved understanding of children and family laws. • Streamlining of transport of remandees to and from prison. • Streamlining of refund of police cash bail to suspects before plea taking. • Creating awareness within local communities on access to justice systems. • Facilitation of COVID-19 vaccination of CUC Members • Coordinated fumigation of justice sector offices at the grassroots. • Timely preparation of reports with cross cutting importance for instance probations and chil- dren’s officers’ reports, expert reports, P3 forms among others. • Training of village elders and nyumba kumi officials on diverse issues on the administration of justice. • Offering of pro bono services to indigent inmates and to the aged. 7.2.6.3 Challenges experienced by Court Users Committees In undertaking their mandate, CUCs encountered diverse challenges that affected their optimal performance. Some notable challenges include, inter alia; • Insufficient funding for CUC activities e.g targeted trainings. • Inadequate women prisons. • Inadequate holding area for children who are in conflict with the law. • Unsuccessful virtual court sessions due to unreliable internet and frequent power outages. • Inadequate staffing across all justice sector institutions. • High rate of sexual offence victims’ failure to attend court and the possibility of coercion and intimidation prompting cases to collapse. • Logistical transport challenges from the prisons department to produce remandees on a daily basis. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE • Little knowledge of ADR among some Advocates. • Police incurring expenses to take exhibits to Government Chemists. • Presence of many brokers who take advantage of citizens. • Incidents of laxity among investigating officers to bond prosecution witnesses to attend court. • Sexual offence cases take long to conclude because victims or witnesses disappear after reporting of the offence. • Long distance of travel to access justice chain actors’ officers in some areas. • Inadequate provision of PPEs for COVID-19 protection. • Inadequate vehicles in some of the areas hampering their execution of their mandate. • Different stakeholders have different ways of operation creating bottlenecks in coordination. • Incidents of late registration of pleas and sneaking in files to the prosecutor when court is in session. • Incidents of delay in dispatch of police files and warrants of arrest from ODPP to police stations. • Congestion in prison. • Mismatch between number of judicial officers and prosecutors. • Inadequate ICT equipment. • Need for additional training on presentation of evidence for police officers. 7.2.6.4 Recommendations by CUCs on Efficient Administration of Justice Provision of reliable internet across all institutions. • Provision of reliable power supply to justice sector institutions including backup generators. • Hold more open days to sensitise the general public on diverse offences, evidence sharing and related issues. • A coordinated approach for pPromotion of AJS mechanismsbut in coordinated way. • Enhanced training and capacity building on AJS for community elders. • Increased public sensitization on Engagement with the public to help them understand ADR avenues of dispute resolution. • Coordinated closure of offices due to COVID-19 pandemic to avoid inconvenience. • Increased resource mobilization, especially targeting donors and reach out to development partners to finance the challenged institutions. • More funds should be allocated for efficient service delivery and other activities of CUCs. • More sensitisation should be done with regard to the CUC’s activities and roles to ensure wider support and cooperation by relevant stakeholders. • Allocate funds to equip prisons with ICT equipment for purposes of enabling the virtual Court operations. • Hold training and capacity building of elders on AJS. • Develop additional policy directions from NCAJ. • Enhance human resource capacity of justice sector the institutions. • Embedding and deepening technology use amongst CUC members to embrace technology 7.3 Reports from NCAJ Agencies 7.3.1 Commission on Administrative Justice The Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) is established under Article 59(4) of the Constitution and the Commission on Administrative Justice Act, 2011 (No. 23 of 2011). The Commission investigates any conduct in State affairs or any act or omission in public administration within Government. The Commission also handles complaints of abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice or unlawful, oppressive, unfair or unresponsive official conduct. During the period under review, the Commission; • Handled 10,678 complaints related to delay in service delivery, abuse of power, unresponsive offi- cial conduct, unfair treatment, oppressive official conduct, discourtesy and inefficiency. Among these complaints, 35 were commenced by the Commission on its own motion. • Undertook five investigations relating to abuse of power, unfair treatment, oppressive conduct and unresponsive conduct. Among the investigations, two were commenced on the Commission’s own motion and three arose from complaints lodged. • Ensured that public institutions continue to proactively disclose information on their websites for ease of access by members of the public and reactively disclose upon request. • Guided National Government institutions and County Governments to establish Committees for implementation of access to information. • Ensured conferment of delegated powers of Information Access Officers (IAO) to a total of 46 County Officers in 46 County Governments. • Received over 369 applications for review of decisions on access to information made by public entities. A total of 332 applications representing 90per sent were successfully resolved, whereby the concerned entities provided the requested information. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6282 6282 • Developed the ‘Access to Information in Kenya: A Journalists Handbook’ to aid in public education and guide journalists and citizens in general on proactive disclosure of information. • Through partnership with the Kenya School of Government, the Commission developed and launched an ‘Access to Information Curriculum’ targeting senior public officers involved in imple- mentation of access to information, which will equip them with essential knowledge, skills and competences to enhance their effectiveness. • Trained 80 public institutions and 1,652 public officers drawn from different sectors in public ser- vice. Technical support was offered to 5 public institutions on strengthening of complaints han- dling and access to information infrastructure i.e. Complaints & Access to Information Policies, and Citizen Service Delivery Charters. The Commission also engaged nine County Governments on various aspects touching on administrative justice and access to information, aimed at boost- ing their capacities. • Sensitised over 500,000 people on complaints handling and access to information by using main- stream media, social media platforms and by visiting Makueni, Taita-Taveta, Nandi, Nyandarua, Mombasa, Garissa and Wajir Counties. • Issued and published an advisory opinion on the administrative issues surrounding the handling of the COVID- 19 pandemic in the country. • Participated in a number of public Interest litigation cases either as respondents or interested parties. 7.3.2 Community Service Orders Committee The National Community Service Orders (CSO) Committee is established to co-ordinate, direct and supervise the work of community service officers. The committee is further mandated to improve the national policy on Community Service Orders. During the period under review, Hon. Lady Justice Cecilia Githua was appointed the Chairperson and Hon Ocharo Momanyi as a member of the National CSO Committee. The key achievements for the Committee during the period under review are; • Commenced a prison decongestion exercise in June 2021 targeting 6,000 inmates to be finalised in 2021/22 FY. • Prepared and presented to courts a total of 22,514 social inquiries report as detailed in table 7.2 below; Table 7.2: Distribution of CSO Reports MALE FEMALE TOTAL Adult 18,941 3,088 22,029 Juvenile 433 52 485 TOTAL 19,374 3,140 22,514 Following the submission of the social inquiry reports, 13,173 convicts were placed under CSO as provided for in the CSO Act as summarised below. The breakdown by gender and age category is provided in Table 7.3 Table 7.3: Supervision of CSO MALE FEMALE TOTAL Adult 10,500 2,435 12,935 Juvenile 221 17 238 TOTAL 10,721 2,452 13,173 7.3.3 Council for Legal Education The Council of Legal Education (CLE) is established under the Legal Education Act 2012 (No. 27 of 2012), with the primary purpose of promoting legal education and training through maintenance of the highest possible standards in legal education, licensing legal education providers, administration of the Bar Examination, and the recognition of foreign legal qualifications for enrollment to the Bar in Kenya. The Council licensed 18 Legal Education Providers and administered Bar examinations to a total of 3,851 candidates. Table 3 provides the details on exam outcomes. Table 7.4: Overall Performance in the Advocates Training Programme Examination June 2021 No. of Candidates PASS No. % Regular/1 st Sitting 1851 758 40.95 Resit 2000 762 38.10 7.3.4 Directorate of Children’s Services The Directorate of Children’s Services is mandated to establish, promote, co-ordinate and supervise services and facilities designed to advance the wellbeing of children and their families. The Directorate manages 30 statutory children’s institutions which cater for the needs of various categories of children in need of rehabilitation, care and protection. The institutions comprise fouteen Children Remand Homes, nine Rehabilitation Schools, two Reception, Classification and Placement Centres and 5 Children Rescue Centres. In FY 2020/21, the Directorate achieved the following towards the administration of justice and services to children. • The Children Bill was approved by the Cabinet and submitted to the National Assembly. • Piloting of care reform programme for orphaned and abandoned children in Kisumu, Kiambu, Kil- ifi, Nyamira and Murang’a Counties. • A total of 207 officers were employed at the level of Children Officer II and Children Assistant to strengthen service delivery to children and their families. • A total of 413 Children Officers at Headquarters, County offices, Sub-County offices and Statutory Children’s Institutions were trained on Bail and Bond, Plea bargaining, Diversion and Active Case Management through a programme supported by the US Government. • A comprehensive assessment of organisational ICT capacities of Children organisations in all 47 Counties DCS offices was done. There was ICT Capacity strengthening through purchase of com- puters and printers for children points of service done in 30 counties with support from UNICEF/ SOSCV/USAID partners. • The process of developing guidelines for missing children in Kenya commenced in the 2020/2021 FY. • Child Protection Volunteers were trained on child protection in collaboration with Child Justice Agencies. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE • Handled 172,630 children’s cases. 87,629 of these were boys while 85,001 were girls. The 10 most handled cases are illustrated in Table 7.5 Table 7.5: Children cases handled in 2020/2021, 10 highest case categories S/N CASE CATEGORY BOYS GIRLS TOTAL 1. Neglect 55825 56937 112762 2. Custody 11577 11442 23019 3. Abandonment 2498 2733 5231 4. Defilement 2929 440 3369 5. Orphan-hood 1466 1387 2853 6. Parental child abduction 1197 1132 2329 7. Physical abuse/violence 1063 1055 2118 8. Child truancy 828 811 1639 9. Missing child/lost and found 694 559 1253 10. Child pregnancy 1125 0 1125 Total 79202 76496 155698 The breakdown per county is provided in Table 7.6 Table 7.6: Children cases handled in FY 2020/2021 by County COUNTY BOYS GIRLS TOTAL 1. Nairobi 8253 8231 16484 2. Meru 4292 4215 8507 3. Nakuru 4000 3761 7761 4. Kiambu 3793 3744 7537 5. Kisumu 3747 3578 7325 6. Bungoma 3544 3743 7287 7. Siaya 3784 3400 7184 8. Kisii 3544 3201 6745 9. Kakamega 3286 3322 6608 10. Machakos 3339 3107 6446 11. Trans Nzoia 2731 3109 5840 12. Migori 3050 2730 5780 13. Murang’a 2844 2654 5498 14. Busia 2686 2395 5081 15. Homa Bay 2448 2427 4875 16. Mombasa 2239 2224 4463 COUNTY BOYS GIRLS TOTAL 17. Makueni 2243 2127 4370 18. Kilifi 2009 1718 3727 19. Baringo 1758 1740 3498 20. Laikipia 1624 1440 3064 21. West Pokot 1378 1642 3020 22. Uasin Gishu 1492 1509 3001 23. Bomet 1502 1495 2997 24. Nyeri 1491 1383 2874 25. Mandera 1177 1479 2656 26. Kajiado 1327 1175 2502 27. Vihiga 1177 1117 2294 28. Kirinyaga 1134 1077 2211 29. Tharaka - Nithi 1157 1022 2179 30. Turkana 1053 1075 2128 31. Nyamira 947 915 1862 32. Kericho 942 916 1858 33. Kitui 949 873 1822 34. Elgeyo/Marakwet 647 698 1345 35. Taita Taveta 677 576 1253 36. Embu 631 579 1210 37. Kwale 629 502 1131 38. Lamu 536 595 1131 39. Garissa 562 544 1106 40. Nandi 537 547 1084 41. Narok 595 453 1048 42. Nyandarua 467 495 962 43. Tana River 438 444 882 44. Samburu 257 318 575 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6284 6284 45. Marsabit 265 292 557 46. Isiolo 255 218 473 47. Wajir 193 196 389 Grand Total 87629 85001 172630 7.3.5 Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) The DCI is established under section 28 of the National Police Service (NPS) Act (No. 11a of 2011) as the lead investigative agency of all criminal matters. The key achievements for the Directorate during the period under review include; • Launched ‘Fichua Kwa DCI’ which is an encrypted telephone platform for reporting of crime. • Launched the ‘DCI Magazine’ to inform and sensitise the public on matters of law and create confidence and trust between the DCI and the public. • Created Criminal Research and Intelligence Bureau to back-up investigators through crime research and intelligence in real time. • Established the Anti-Terrorism Tactical Response Team and Counter Terrorism Centre of Excellence with an aim of combating terrorism and associated crimes. • Investigated fraud involving housing and land leading to recovery of KSh14 billion. • Partnered with the Asset Recovery Agency (ARA) to recover proceeds of crime totaling to KSh1,283 million. • Partnered with the KRA Investigation Unit to investigate cases with a revenue implication of KSh1,093,655,268. 7.3.6 Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is a statutory body established under the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act (No. 22 of 2011) with a mandate to combat and prevent corruption and economic crimes. The EACC enhanced administration of justice through investigations and enforcement tasks as enumerated below. Table 7.7: Achievements on investigations and enforcement PARTICULARS ACHIEVEMENT No. of reports received and processed 4,894 No. of reports taken up by the Commission 2,025 Completed investigations 211 No. of investigation reports submitted to DPP 104 No. of cases taken to court for prosecution 70 Finalized prosecution cases with conviction 23 Value of illegally acquired and unexplained assets traced KShs 13.01099 Bbillion Proactive investigations (approximate averted loss) KShs 6.022 Billion Value of illegally acquired assets: land/immovable property and cash KShs 16.,36 Billions Applications for preservation of assets made 19 No. of recovery suits filed during the period 76 Value of assets preserved KSh501.,83 Million No. of cases filed against the Commission 75 The Commission promoted ethics and integrity through enforcement of Chapter Six of the Constitution. The specific achievements are provided in Table 7.8 Table 7.8: Achievements on promotion of ethics and integrity PARTICULARS ACHIEVEMENTS Ethics cases supported in court 26 on-going cases supported Signing and commitment to the leadership and integrity codes by state officers Facilitated 42 State officers to sign and commit to codes Development of codes of conduct and ethics for public officers Facilitated 22 public entities to develop their codes of conduct and ethics Monitor compliance with Chapter 6 of the constitution, LIA and POEA Conducted an online assessment on 22 Responsible Commissions in the National Government and 3 Responsible Commissions at Nairobi City County Technical support to public entities on the implementation of Leadership and integrity laws • Undertook 25 capacity building forums reaching 1979 officers • Held 3 capacity building forums with County Public Service Boards on implementation of Chapter 6 of the Constitution and related integrity laws • Facilitated 12 forums facilitated reaching 337 County Assemblies Committee of Powers and Privileges and County Assembly Service Boards • Finalized 4 guidelines • Guidelines for compliance with the legal requirements on DIALs • Guidelines on frequently asked questions on DIALS • Guidelines on Registrable interests • Guidelines for public entities on Chapter Six of the Constitution and other integrity legislation Cautions to public officers on violation of Leadership and Integrity laws • Issued 194 cautions to various state and public officers Notices to public officers on violation of Leadership and integrity laws • Issued 24 public officers issued with notices Compliance notices to responsible Commissions that did not submit returns for the 2019 Declaration year • Issued 26 compliance notices (7 County Public Service Boards, 7 County Assembly Service Boards and 12 responsible commissions in the National Government 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE • Issued reminder Notice to County Public Service Boards of Vihiga and Kirinyaga Development and gazettement of administrative procedures on Declaration of Income, Assets and liabilities (DIALs) • Facilitated 46 Responsible Commissions to gazette their procedures (14 in National Government, 7 CPSBs, 14 CASBs and 11 CAPPC) Advisories pursuant to Chapter Six of the Constitution • Issued 117 advisories to various individuals and public entities Audit on compliance with the law on Declaration of Income, Assets and Liabilities (DIALs) during the 2019 Declaration year • 1 status report developed Integrity verification and clearance for appointment and election to Public Office • Received and processed 8,049 integrity verification requests (4,501 from National Government, 3,454 from County Governments and 94 from private organizations) Approval of bank accounts held outside the Country Kenya by State and Public Officers • Processed 322 bank applications Compliance notices to public officers serving in foreign missions currently operating unapproved bank accounts or who have not submitted annual bank statements • 191 notices issued to public officers who did not seek approval from EACC to operate bank account outside the country a. Corruption Prevention 1. Systems Review The Commission undertook systems reviews in various organisations and finalised 11 examination reports. The purpose for systems reviews is to identify systemic weaknesses in functional areas and to advise the organisations on methods of sealing the loopholes and promoting ethical culture in the workplace. The systems reviews undertaken during the period are: i. State Department of Technical and Vocational Education and Training - The review of system, policies, procedures and practices of the Department intended to identify loopholes in dis- bursement of funds, operational and guidance manuals, nominees’ composition and internal audit function; ii. Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing Urban Development National Hygiene Pro- gramme iii. Kenyatta National Hospital – The review targeted the areas of procurement requisitions, NHIF Losses, Staff Deployments, un-surrendered imprests, Disaster Recovery and Business Conti- nuity and Public Participation Framework. iv. The State Department of Housing and Urban Development – Affordable Housing Programme; v. National Youth Service – the review targeted all the functional areas of the school. vi. Agricultural Settlement Fund Trustee. 2. Corruption Risk Assessments The Commission finalised four Reports on Corruption Risk Assessments (CRAs) conducted in Nyamira and Nandi County Assembly. 3. Advisory Services The Commission provides advisory services towards enhancing anti-corruption in the public and private sectors. The following advisory activities were undertaken- • Advisories to 45 MDAs on Prevention of Corruption and Bribery under the Bribery Act, 2016 • Advisories under the Public Service Performance Contracting Framework to oversee the imple- mentation of corruption prevention indicators in the Performance Contracts MDAs signed with the National Government. During the reporting period/ • The Commission analysed a total of 877 quarterly reports submitted by MDAs under the Corrup- tion Prevention criteria in the Performance Contract. 4. Corruption Prevention Guidelines The Commission developed three Corruption Prevention Guidelines. Two guidelines were developed in the functional areas of Project Management and Supply Chain Management, and are ready for discussion and dissemination. b. Public Education and Awareness The Commission conducted robust media programmes where 58 print media articles were published and 26 electronic media programmes reaching approximately 40,055,000 people. It disseminated 42,000 IEC materials both in soft and hardcopies. Under the targeted networks and community professionals, the Commission reached out to a total of 44 networks and a total of 501,907 participants drawn from Human Rights network, Community Based Anti-Corruption Monitors among others. A total of 60 members of various civil society organisations were sensitised by the Commission such as Kwale Civil Society Organisations, members of Community Based Anti-Corruption Monitors (CBAM) drawn from Kisii and First Action Summit organisation in Mombasa. The Commission conducted general sensitisation workshops in MDAs and County Governments. Members of the public and community-based groups were also reached through integrity sensitisations. The Commission conducted a total of 91 general sensitisation sessions targeting a total of 4,320 participants drawn from various public sector institutions. c. Review of the Legal and Policy Framework in the Fight against Corruption The Commission participated in the review and development of the legal framework in the fight against corruption and enforcement of integrity and ethics. The major achievements in this area include- 1. Development of Proposed New Anti-Corruption Laws The Commission spearheaded the multi-stakeholder to develop the proposed Conflict of Interest Bill, 2020 which seeks to consolidate and strengthen the legal, policy and administrative framework for management of conflict of interest in Kenya as a strategy in the fight against corruption. The Commission also made extensive contributionscontribution to the ongoing development of a law on conducting lifestyle audits, which is spearheaded by the Senate, namely the Lifestyle Audit Bill, 2021. 2. Development of the Regulatory Framework under the Bribery Act, 2016 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6286 6286 The Bribery Act 2016 , (No 47 of 2016) was enacted through a multi-stakeholder approach which was driven by the private sector in consultation with the Executive and relevant government agencies. It contains elaborate provisions for suppression and combating of bribery, both in public and private sectors, replacing the provisions on bribery previously contained in the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act. 3. Amendment of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act Through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2020 (Act No. 20 of 11th December, 2020), the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act was amended at section 11(1)(j) to give the Commission power to institute proceedings for recovery of property or proceeds of corruption located outside Kenya. Previously, the Act was silent on this aspect, hence the proposal by the Commission for this amendment. 4. Seized Assets Management Policy and Guidelines One of the principal mandates of the Commission under section 11 of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act (No. 22 of 2011) is to institute court proceedings for the recovery and protection of public property, or for the freeze or confiscation of proceeds of corruption or related to corruption. Section 51 of Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003. 7.3.7 FIDA Kenya In exercise of its mandate, FIDA-Kenya undertook the following in support of the administration of justice; • Attended to 6,510 women seeking legal assistance. Out of these 2,507 were new clients. A total of 494 cases were taken and filed in court while others were handled through other interventions. • Referred 215 matters to pro bono advocates where 26 matters were concluded. • Provided training to 341 clients and filed 300 cases in court, some matters being for clients who were making a come- back to follow up on their cases. Forty- five clients successfully completed their cases through self-representation. • Developed an informal justice systems strategy manual and further held five trainings for elders on the current provisions of the Constitution and Alternative Dispute Resolution. • Organised psychosocial support to women who suffered mental and emotional trauma due to the infringement of their rights whether physically, economically or emotionally. A total of 712 clients were given counselling services of which 492 were new clients. A total of 64 couple therapy ses- sions were held with 37 being successful. • Set-up virtual justice centers in Lang’ata, Thika, Nyeri and Kisii prisons where the inmates are offered self-representation training, group therapy as well as attend virtual courts. 7.3.8 Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Following the launch of the post-election report, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) rolled out the next cycle to the 2022 General Election which is to be conducted in the within its constitutional mandate. As a necessity, the Commission needs to have a robust legal framework, structures, systems and resources to effectively deliver on its mandate. The electoral cycle approach imposes an obligation upon the Commission to shift from treating elections as an event and embrace a long term strategy in electoral process management. The Commission achieved the following in the FY 2019/2020: Developed and submitted to Parliament the Electoral Law Reform Report; The IEBC Experience Finalized draft proposals of the electoral laws and regulations to address the challenges witnessed in 2017. Engagement with the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) and the Judicial Committee on Elections (JCE) towards establishing a workable Electoral Dispute Resolution (EDR) framework. Finalized the electoral para-legal programmes/curriculum on electoral processes and dispute resolution. Development of an effective interface framework for early engagement with the National Police; ODPP, PPDT; Judiciary; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC); Office of the Attorney General and the Council of Governors. Review of existing electoral laws the Commission submitted the following draft Bills to Parliament Draft Referendum Bill, 2020; Draft IEBC (Amendment) Bill, 2020; Draft Election Campaign Financing (Amendment) Bill, 2020, and Draft Election Campaign Financing Regulations, 2020. Additionally, the Commission finalised and forwarded to Parliament a report titled, “Report on Electoral Law Reform in Kenya: The IEBC Experience,” which contains a raft of proposals for consideration. Submission of the comprehensive matrix of proposals to JLAC on the electoral reform agenda which also included amendment bills to Parliament for validation and enactment. Facilitation of public participation on electoral laws. 7.3.9 Independent Policing Oversight Authority The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) is established to provide civilian oversight over the work of the Police. In the FY 2020/21, the authority received 2,881 complaints which were processed through the internal Complaints Intake Committee. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE The trend of complaints is shown in Figure 7.2 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 0 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Figure 7.2: Complaints received and processed The Authority conducted a total of 727 investigations. Out of which 148 investigation case files were forwarded to the ODPP for further processing. The trend of investigation is illustrated in Figure 4. 800 600 400 200 0 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Figure 7.3: Investigations completed since inception The Authority monitored 67 policing operations, which included 4 monitoring provision of security during by-elections, 8 security operations, 28 public order management operations, 10 CIC referral 4 on Beats and Patrols operations, 11 on traffic management and 2 on police recruitment. 7.3.10 Kenya Association of Manufacturers The Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM) is the representative organisation for manufacturing value-add industries in Kenya, comprising more than 1,000 members across 16 sectors. The Association promotes trade and investment at national, county, and international levels; upholds standards, encourages the formulation, enactment and administration of sound policies that facilitate a competitive business environment and promote the reduction of the cost of doing business. During the period under review, KAM launched the Guidebook on Company and Corporate Insolvency Law to support Judges and Magistrates to expeditiously review the relevant legal provisions in the laws as they settle commercial cases. 7.3.11 Kenya Human Rights Commission 3,237 2,991 2,881 2,529 2,267 2,339 1,792 594 728 727 115 27 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6288 6288 The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) is a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) with the mandate of enhancing human rights centred governance. The Commission: • Championed the recognition of 1,670 Shona’s and 1,300 Rwandese people as Kenyan citizens. • Filed a case in pursuit of compensation by 5,000 victims of the Solai Dam tragedy. • As part of the Civic Space Protection Platform led the process of developing a compilation of laws related to protection of civic space/ civil and political rights in Kenya. • Engaged in a comprehensive human rights monitoring process that culminated in the publication of a report titled ‘Wanton Impunity and Exclusion.’ 7.3.12 Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association During the period under review the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) undertook the activities highlighted in Table 7.9 Table 7.9: Kenya Magistrates & Judges Association Activities/Training NO. TITLE 1 Child online protection and influence management 2 Sensitisation of Chairpersons of CUC on SGBVi 3 Electronic Fraud Prevention 4 Sensitisation of Judicial Officers on Indigenous Peoples’ Property Rights and Conservation Standards 5 Sensitisation/ Discussions on the State of Juvenile Justice in Kenya and Debriefing for Judicial Officers 6 Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals I: Digital Evidence 7 Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals II: Digital Forensics Process 8 Sensitisation of the Eldoret CUC on Sexual Minority Rights 9 Development of messages and Communication materials on crime scene management 10 Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals III: Expert Witnesses in Court 11 Sensitisation of the Kajiado CUC on Sexual Minority Rights 12 Sensitisation on the Rights of the Sexual Minorities for the Nairobi Region 13 Adjudicating Cases of Transnational Corruption in Kenya 14 The Big Debate for the elections of representative to the JSC 15 KMJA AGM and Elections of the representative to the JSC and Vice President of KMJA 16 General aspects and legal perspective of digital forensics, cybercrimes and emerging technologies, threats, trends and tools of cyber-crime 17 Consultative Forum on Transnational Corruption and Cyber-security 18 Civil Society Farewell Luncheon for the Retired Chief Justice David Maraga 19 Sensitisation on COVID-19 Vaccination roll out 20 Sensitisation of the Kisumu CUC on Sexual Minority Rights 21 Child Online Protection and Influence Management II – Child Welfare Tips 22 Electronic Frauds Resolved 23 Equality and Non-Discrimination Workshop on Sexual Minority Rights 24 The National Dialogue on Elections in Kenya 25 Sensitisation on 5G Networks 26 Sensitised select Chairpersons of Court Users Committees on Sexual and Gender Based Violence on challenges within the courts in the attainment of justice for SGBV victims. Through partnership with the Legal Resources Foundation Trust (LRF), held a sensitisation workshop for Mag- istrates on improving juvenile justice. 28 Sensitised Judicial Officers on Indigenous Peoples’ Property Rights and Conservation Standards. 29 With the Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU), designed to improve access to justice with special focus on access to justice for victims of torture, collection of evidence at crime scenes, evidential standards required for successful prosecutions using information collected from crime scenes; and for reference materials for investigators at crime scenes. 30 Sensitisation on 5G Networks In collaboration with the KHRC, and the Minority Rights Group International, is implementing a project whose objectives are to guarantee the respect of indigenous peoples’ rights to land and their role in conservation and prevention of climate change. 7.3.13 Kenya Law Reform Commission The Kenya Law Reform Commission (KLRC) has a statutory role of reviewing the laws of Kenya to ensure that they are modernised, relevant and harmonised with the Constitution. During the period under review, the Commission achieved the following; Table 7.10: List of Draft Legislation, Policies and other Documents that KLRC has worked on in the FY 2020/2021 BILLS DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED STATUS A. BILLS DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED Constitution Develop Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2020 Completed* Electoral Laws Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2020 Completed Political Parties (Amendment) Bill. 2020 Completed Political Parties Primaries Bill, 2020 Completed Campaign Financing (Amendment) Bill, 2020 Completed 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Devolution Laws Reviewed the County Governments Act Completed Reviewed the Intergovernmental Relations Act Completed Public Finance Laws Public Finance Management (Amendment) Bill, 2020 Ongoing Restorative Justice Fund Bill, 2020 Ongoing Urban Development Fund Bill, 2020 Ongoing Constitutional Commissions Laws Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Commission Bill, 2020 Ongoing Ethics and Integrity Commission Bill, 2020 Ongoing Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2020 Ongoing Technical Assistance to Ministries, Departments and Agencies Kenya Film Bill, 2020 Completed Huduma Bill, 2020 Completed Conflict of Interest Bill, 2020 Completed Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill, 2020 Completed Review of the legislative and regulatory instruments establishing State Corporations Ongoing Review of the financial laws in partnership with the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) Ongoing Review of the Nuclear Regulatory Act, No. 29 of 2019 Ongoing Technical Assistance to Ministries, Departments and Agencies Framework to merge the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) and Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) Ongoing Review of the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service Act, No. 54 of 2012 Ongoing Review of the Agriculture Development Corporation Act, Cap. 444 Ongoing Review of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap. 2 Ongoing Review of the laws relating to the Power of Mercy Ongoing Review of the Persons Deprived of Liberty Act, No. 23 of 2014 Ongoing Review of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, No. 47 of 2013 Ongoing A. SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED STATUS Referendum Regulations, 2020 Completed Huduma Regulations, 2020 Completed County Governments Regulations, 2020 Completed Intergovernmental Relations Regulations, 2020 Completed Anti-Doping Rules, 2020 Completed Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development Regulations, 2020 Ongoing Kenya Civil Aviation Authority Regulations, 2020 Ongoing Salaries and Remuneration Commission (Remuneration of State and Public Officers) Regulations, 2020 Ongoing B. COUNTY BILLS DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED STATUS Baringo County Pre-Primary Meals and Nutrition Bill, 2021 Completed Baringo County Disaster Management Bill, 2020 Completed Nairobi City Development Bill, 2020 Completed Wajir County Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2020 Completed C. COUNTY SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED STATUS Public Finance Management (Kakamega County Health Facilities Improvement Fund) Regulations, 2020 Completed D. LEGAL AUDITS STATUS Kenya School of Government Legal Audit Completed E. POLICIES REVIEWED (NATIONAL) STATUS National Correctional Services Policy, 2020 Completed Kenya Film Policy Completed Anti-Doping Policy Completed Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development Policy Ongoing National Relief Management Policy Ongoing Building Code, 2020 Ongoing F. GUIDELINES DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED STATUS Implementation Framework on the Audit of the National and County Legislation Ongoing G. POLICIES REVIEWED (COUNTY) STATUS 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6290 6290 Kitui County Donkey Policy Completed H. RESEARCH STATUS Researched on Access to Justice in Magistrates’ Courts Completed Researched on the legal and institutional framework of County Partnerships in Kenya Completed Developed the World Bank Ease of doing Business Report Completed Researched on the legal and institutional framework of County Partnerships in Kenya Completed Reviewed the Protocol on Publication of County Legislation Completed Identified and researched on obsolete laws Ongoing I. PUBLIC EDUCATION ON LAW REFORM STATUS Disseminated the Guide to the Legislative Process in Kenya in seven counties Completed Sensitized the seven county governments on the county model laws Completed *‘Completed’ refers to draft legislation or policy finalised by KLRC and submitted either to the Attorney-General, an instructing MDAs or a County Government. 7.3.14 Kenya National Commission on Human Rights The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) is an independent National Human Rights Institution created under Article 59 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and established through the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Act, 2011 (No. 14 of 2011). It is the State’s lead agency in the promotion and protection of human rights. The key achievements of the Commission were; • Seventy-eight (78) investigations on alleged violation of various categories of rights were con- ducted and reports with findings and recommendations prepared. • Processed 23 complaints on alleged violation of human rights during the enforcement of dusk to dawn curfew in the pandemic period. • Attended to 21 PIL cases on human rights violations within the reporting period. The KNCHR was joined in two new petitions and made an application to be joined as an interested party in One (1) new PIL case. The KNCHR was able to conduct 18 Court trial observations. • Provided 150 victims of SGBV with psychosocial support and empowerment through individual counselling sessions and training on economic activities suitable for their locations. • Supported 24 CUCs on the thematic areas of petty offences and SGBV case management. The CUCs were introduced to Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) as an approach to development that adopts human rights standards and principles in development. • Reviewed and issued 23 advisories to various House Committees in the Senate and the National Assembly to seek compliance with Human Rights Standards. • Prepared and submitted its statutory report on the Prevention of Torture Act in line with the law and the additional mandate assigned by this law. • Conducted institutional audits, compliance finalisation and the launch of nationwide survey on Human Rights for the Vulnerable Groups during the COVID 19 period. • Further, KNCHR conducted a nationwide research-based study on how COVID-19 had impacted the enjoyment of rights for various vulnerable groups in Kenya. The groups identified included; children, women, youth, the elderly, Persons With Disabilities (PWDs), detainees, intersex persons, orphans & vulnerable children. 7.3.15 Kenya Prisons Service The Kenya Prisons Service (KPS) is established and governed by the Prisons Act (Cap 90) and Borstal Institutions Act (Cap 92). It contributes to public safety and security by ensuring there is safe custody of all persons who are lawfully committed to prison facilities, as well as facilitating the rehabilitation of custodial sentenced offenders for community reintegration. The number of inmates in prisons is provided in Table 7.11. Table 7.11: Total number of inmates FY 2020/21 CATEGORY FY 2020/2021 MALE FEMALE TOTAL Convicted 26,917 1,438 28,355 In remand 20,052 1,215 21,267 Borstal Institution 211 19 230 Youth Corrective Training Centre 32 32 Children 216 TOTAL POPULATION 47,212 2,672 50,100 During the year under review, the KPS undertook various activities namely:- • Carried out an exercise where Resident Judges issued revisionary orders that placed petty offenders on community service with a view of easing overcrowding in prison facilities. • Trained 135 prison officers and 280 inmates as paralegal officers. The trainings were done in Machakos, Kiambu, Thika, Naivasha, Kisii, Eldoret and Siaya among others. • KPS through the help of ICRC and the Red Cross Society enabled the setting up of quarantine facilities in 46 stations such as Nairobi Remand, Kakamega Main and Women, Shimo Max/Women/ Shimo B.I /Malindi/Nyeri Max/ Lodwar Main among others. • Gazetted new women prisons including Kapsabet, Kapenguria, Isiolo and Siaya Women Prisons. • Trained 20,000 inmates on vocational training Programmes while 4,000 of them completed their trade tests. • The Kenya Prisons Service (Legal Unit) in liaison with other stakeholders such as Kituo Cha Sheria, Christian Lawyers among others rendered pro bono services to prisoners who cannot hire private advocates to represent them in court. This was done in Machakos, Thika, Shimo La Tewa, and Lang’ata Women Prisons Kamiti Remand for Youthful offenders among other institutions. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE 7.3.16 Legal Resources Foundation Legal Resources Foundation Trust (LRF) promotes access to justice among vulnerable, indigent and marginalised groups, with a view to establish legal inclusivity. LRF employs the paralegal approach to deliver its programmes across the country. Paralegals are stationed in different communities including prisons. The foundation undertook key activities during the FY 2020/21 • LRF is partnering with the Judiciary through the NCAJ’s Task Force on Children Matters to develop a friendly handbook for use by actors that work with children under the Juvenile Justice System (JJS) to promote child safeguarding and protection. • LRF hosted a global webinar titled; Justice In The Eye Of The Child in partnership with the NCAJ and the Institute of Child Psychology – Canada. The webinar delved on Child Therapy as a therapeutic jurisprudence intervention. This webinar attracted over 500 virtual participants. • Supported the Nakuru Children Court CUC on the application of child therapy as an innovation to promote juvenile justice system in Nakuru. • Trained 42 elders Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs drawn from Starehe and Lang’ata sub-counties in Nairobi on AJS policy. Further, LRF facilitated a sensitisation session on the AJS policy for Nairobi City Court and Kibera CUCs in March and June 2021 respectively. • Established virtual court infrastructure (computers, projectors, internet) in Isiolo, Kitui and Kericho prisons to mitigate effects of COVID-19 on access to justice. • Trained 56 elders drawn from far flung areas in Kyuso and Mutomo, Kitui County, who are now equipped to resolve minor disputes. • Introduced a prison AJS model in Isiolo Prison that uses elders in resolving disputes between complainants and accused persons already detained in prison. • Did a documentary on the Alternative Justice System Policy. • Conducted a training for 26 Magistrates who handle children matters as well as supported Child Focused Court Users Committees (CCUC) meetings in Nakuru to help address children’s issues. • Supported the process of setting up an independent Special Nairobi City CUCs hence delinking itself from the Milimani CUC. • Trained 25 Medical Officers in Kitui County on their role as expert witnesses and how to develop informative forensic reports that are critical in dispensing justice for SGBV Conducted radio talk shows on legal framework supporting children, diversion policy guidelines, medical-legal management of SGBV, legal aid and alternative care to children by children officers, ODPP, NLAS, RVLS, medical experts and paralegals. • Conducted training for 300 Prison Officers from eight Penal Institutions in Nairobi and Mombasa Counties on countering violent extremism and reduction of radicalisation in penal institutions. • Created awareness to 4,823 prisoners on manifestation of violent extremism in Kenya, signs of radicalisation, and importantly, the manner in which a prisoner can navigate through the criminal justice system. • Facilitated the development of an Integrated Prisoners’ Management Manual. • Trained 630 new paralegals in all the 47 Counties. • Trained a total 120 county law enforcement officers from Meru and Kisii Counties on human rights and due process. • LRF trained Nairobi County law enforcement officers and Nairobi City Court CUC Members on plea bargaining, the use of ADR and the Legal Aid Act 2016 to sort out State regulated offences with regards to non-compliance with licensing requirements. • Provided legal aid assistance to over 5,000 pre-trial inmates. • Conducted online/virtual training for men, women and girls’ champions for the three communities. (Kitet, Mai mahiu, and Narasha community) on matters of land and environmental rights. 7.3.17 National Crime Research Centre During the review period, the Council: a. Conducted an Assessment of the Impact of COVID-19 on Crime and Security Management in Kenya. The Assessment established that breach of curfew and movement restrictions (17%);, Gender Based Violence (13%); engaging in riots (10%); murder (11%); Al Shabaab terror related attacks (10%); stealing (10%); child defilement (6%) as the leading crime committed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya. b. Conducted a study on “Protecting the Family in the Time of COVID-19 Pandemic: Addressing the Escalating Cases of GBV, Girl Child Disempowerment and Violation of Children’s Rights in Kenya”. c. Conducted the National State of Crime and its Prevention in Kenya Conference 2021. The NSCPK Conference, 2021 was co-convened by the National Crime Research Centre (NCRC), RE-IN- VENT-Kenya and other Governance, Justice and Law and Order Sector (GJLOS) agencies. The con- ference was attended by 84 delegates physically while about 100 followed virtually. The objective of the conference was to discuss and give the way forward on the state of crime in Kenya and crime prevention initiatives under the following thematic areas: home-based crimes and family violence in the context of COVID- 19; Governance and leadership in the context of Government fight against corruption; election crimes and offenses; and countering violent extremism and terrorism. d. Conducted a study on “Status of Child Protection in Charitable Children’s Institutions in Kenya”. This study was conducted in 24 counties in Kenya. The objective of the study was to establish the status of child care and protection system in charitable children’s institutions in Kenya. The main factors contributing to placement of children in Charitable Children’s Institutions (CCIs) as reported by the social workers were orphanhood , abandonment , neglect , parental irresponsibility , and hunger/lack of food at home . Similarly, CCI managers reported abandonment , orphan- hood , neglect , absentee mothers/parents ( hunger , and sexual abuse , as the main factors contributing to the placement of children in CCIs. The predominant crimes and offenses against children at the CCIs as reported by children respondents were physical abuse . Most of the social workers and CCI managers reported defilement. Drug abuse, stealing and affray, were the main offenses committed by children in these facilities. The study recommended that the CCIs management build strong internal systems that guarantee and strengthen protection of the rights of children. e. A Study on the “Prevalence and the Patterns of the Land Related Crimes in Kenya” This survey was conducted in 33 counties in Kenya. The sample respondents were 2,608 members of the public. The objective of this study was to explore the prevalence and patterns of land-re- lated crimes in Kenya. The study findings indicated that the most prevalent land related crimes were double or multiple allocation of land ; interfering with land boundaries ; land possession by two or more people ; trespass ; and land fraud/exploitation .Furthermore, majority of the respon- dents had either been victims or witnessed land-related crimes in their locality. The culture of corruption , high cost of processing land documents , lack of awareness on land rights , delay of land ownership matters in courts and lack of transparency in land related matters emerged as the leading challenges in handling land-related crimes. The study recommended that the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning expedite the process of digitisation of land registry, issuance of title deeds to all 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6292 6292 demarcated lands and roll out mechanisms to weed out cartels and their networks within the ministry; adopt multi-agency/sector collaboration of land stakeholders in addressing land-related challenges. f. A Study on “Factors Shaping Police Performance in Kenya” This study was conducted in 18 counties in Kenya. The objective of the survey was to establish factors influencing police performance in Kenya. For gazetted officers these factors included competitive remuneration ; both availability of resources and equipment and conducive working environment ; adequate training and fair promotion (. The study recommended that the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) put in place competitive remuneration to the police officers as a motivation strategy; enhanced budgetary allocation to the National Police Service (NPS) to modernise infrastructure, office space and full automation of the NPS Services; and NPSC and NPS to review the policies that addresses placement (command and control), deployment, re- cruitment and promotion for police officers across the ranks. 7.3.18 National Council on Law Reporting The National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law) is mandated with the preparation and publication of the reports known as the Kenya Law Reports, which shall contain judgments, rulings and opinions of the superior courts of record. During the FY 2020/2021 Kenya Law has made significant advances in tracking Kenya’s jurisprudence and disseminating public legal information. The key accomplishments included; Publication of 1,500 copies of service issues publication of eight law reports and specialised law reports 472 statutes out of 504 were revised and updated, making a 93.5 per cent revision status. Another 32 statutes were still in the process of revision. Five volumes of the Laws of Kenya were published among, the Grey book, which consists of fifteen (15) of the most frequently used Acts of Parliament. Online Publication of the Laws of Kenya Kenya Law tracks law reform issues emerging from case law and legislation and in addition, contributes to legal and administrative reforms by tracking and reporting judicial opinions containing pertinent pronouncements on legal and administrative reforms. This publications facilitated judicial officers, legal practitioners and members of the public to understand and advance their rights and obligations. These freely accessible data also facilitated government institutions and officers to review, implement and enforce laws and regulations. 7.3.19 National Police Service The National Police Service(NPS) is a creation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Its mandate and functions are spelt out in the National Police Service Act 2011 and the National Police Service Commission Act 2011. To effectively perform its mandate, it is divided broadly into The Kenya Police Service, The Administrative Police Service and The Directorate Criminal Investigation. Activities Undertaken On 29 July 2020, the NPS launched the first mandatory e-learning training for police officers in Kenya. The training, supported by UNODC through the Programme for Legal Empowerment and Aid Delivery in Kenya seeks to address the unique challenges that police officers face in enforcing law and order during the COVID-19 pandemic and comprises seven e-learning modules that police officers can complete at their own pace on a computer, tablet or smart phone. Among the topics covered are the use of force, human rights approaches to crowd control, handling of SGBV violence cases, bail and bond, and how to deal with special interest groups such as persons with disabilities and children in conflict with the law. As at 21st July 2021, 32,534 police officers had enrolled in the course, with 16,498 having completed and received the online generated certificates. of these 4,189 female officers enrolled, of whom 1,741 completed the course. PRE SENSITIZATION JANUARY APRIL AS AT TODAY Enrolled Figure 7.4: Statistics on learners 32,534 22,804 16,036 16,498 4,902 2,731 11,584 12,436 26,424 10,596 12,236 25,183 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Figure 7.4 Statistics on Learners • Apprehension of 64,215 offenders. • Operationalisation of Administrative Police Posts into Police stations. Table 7.12: Comparative Crime Figures OFFENCE 2019/2020 2020/2021 DIF. % DIFF a) Murder 1,870 2,074 204 11 b) Manslaughter 86 82 -4 -5 c) Infanticide 49 53 4 8 d) Procuring Abortion 41 28 -13 -32 e) Concealing Birth 76 54 -22 -29 f) Suicide 503 621 118 23 g) Causing Death by Dangerous Driving 341 376 35 10 Sub - Total 2966 3288 322 11 a) Rape 972 1004 32 3 b) Defilement 6,305 7,464 1,159 18 c) Incest 333 342 9 3 Un-natural offences sodomy 79 72 -7 -9 OFFENCE 2019/2020 2020/2021 DIF. % DIFF e) Beastiality 21 11 -10 -48 f) Indecent assault 270 302 32 12 g) Abduction 65 65 0 0 h) Bigamy 31 101 70 226 Sub - Total 8,076 9,361 1,285 16 a) Assault 15,643 15,759 116 1 b) Creating Disturbance 5,784 5,104 -680 -12 c) Affray 689 896 207 30 Sub - Total 22,116 21,759 -357 -2 a) Robbery 642 575 -67 -10 b) Robbery with Violence 1944 1666 -278 -14 c) Carjacking 44 29 -15 -34 d) Robbed of Motor/vehicle 21 14 -7 -33 e) Cattle Rustling 19 24 5 26 Sub - Total 2670 2308 -362 -14 A) House Breaking 2366 1948 -418 -18 B) Burglary 1417 1136 -281 -20 C) Other Breaking 1565 1303 -262 -17 Sub - Total 5348 4387 -961 -18 Stock theft 1728 1739 11 1 Sub - Total 1728 1739 11 1 a) Handling stolen property 430 417 -13 -3 b) Stealing from Person 681 524 -157 -23 c) Stealing by Tenants/lodgers 53 40 -13 -25 d) Stealing from a building 269 275 6 2 e) General Stealing 9,992 8,490 -1,502 -15 Sub - Total 11,425 9,746 -1,679 -15 a) Stealing by Directors 101 235 134 133 b) Stealing by Agents 173 137 -36 -21 c) Stealing by employee/servant 1463 1335 -128 -9 Sub - Total 1737 1707 -30 -2 a) Theft of M/V 330 330 0 0 b) Theft from M/V 145 112 -33 -23 c) Theft of M/V parts 146 165 19 13 c) Theft of MotorCycle 445 612 167 38 Sub - Total 1,066 1,219 153 14 a) Possession 5755 3798 -1957 -34 b) Handling 126 81 -45 -36 c) Trafficking 912 639 -273 -30 d) Cultivating 166 169 3 2 e) Usage 59 51 -8 -14 Sub - Total 7,018 4,738 -2,280 -32 a) Taking vehicle without lawful authority 131 70 -61 -47 b) Driving under influence of alcohol 164 41 -123 -75 Sub - Total 295 111 -184 -62 a) Malicious damage 3,158 3,338 180 6 b) Arson 478 620 142 30 c) Other criminal damage 68 77 9 13 d) Negligent acts 208 259 51 25 Sub - Total 3,912 4,294 382 10 a) Obtaining by false pretences 3,334 3,150 -184 -6 OFFENCE 2019/2020 2020/2021 DIF. % DIFF b) Currency forgery 133 108 -25 -19 c) False accounting 19 24 5 26 d) Other fraud/forgery offences 595 539 -56 -9 Sub - Total 4,081 3,821 -260 -6 a) Soliciting for Bribe 42 75 33 79 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6294 6294 b) Accepting Bribe 6 8 2 33 c) Accepting free gifts 1 7 6 0 d) Demanding by false pretence 12 10 -2 -17 e) Other Corruption Offences 39 42 3 8 Sub - Total 100 142 42 42 a) Soliciting for Bribe 9 1 -8 -89 b) Accepting Bribe 2 1 -1 -50 c) Accepting Free Gifts 0 2 2 >100 d) Demanding by false pretence 5 7 2 40 e) Other Criminal Offences 69 49 -20 -29 Sub - Total 85 60 -25 -29 a) Bag Snatching 3 10 7 0 b) Other offences Against tourists 7 1 -6 -86 c) Other Offences Involving Tourists 20 22 2 10 Sub - Total 30 33 3 10 Other penal code offences 7,559 7,780 221 3 Table 7.13: Types of Offences S/NO OFFENCE 2019/2020 2020/2021 DIF. % DIFF 1 Homicide 2966 3288 322 11 2 Offences against morality 8076 9361 1285 16 3 Other offences against persons 22116 21759 -357 -2 4 Robbery 2670 2308 -362 -14 5 Breakings 5348 4387 -961 -18 6 Theft of stock 1728 1739 11 1 7 Stealing 11425 9746 -1679 -15 8 Theft by servant 1,737 1,707 -30 -2 9 Vehicle and other thefts 1,066 1,219 153 14 10 Dangerous drugs 7018 4,738 -2,280 -32 11 Traffic offences 295 111 -184 -62 12 Criminal damage 3,912 4,294 382 10 13 Economic crimes 4,081 3,821 -260 -6 14 Corruption 100 142 42 42 15 Offences involving police officers 85 60 -25 -29 16 Offences involving tourist 30 33 3 10 17 Other penal code offences 7559 7780 221 3 TOTAL 80,212 76,493 -3,719 -5 7.3.20 National Transport and Safety Authority The National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) was established through an Act of Parliament; Act of 2012 Number 33 with harmonise the operations of the key road transport departments and help in effectively managing the road transport sub-sector and minimising loss of lives through road crashes. During the period under review, NTSA undertook diverse activities that support administration of justice as follows; • Undertook Look out! #TuvukeSalama which is a Road Safety campaign done together with Vivio Energy that is aimed at promoting a safe environment around schools. The campaign reached 100 schools within 7 counties; in Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru, Kericho, Embu, Kisumu, and Nyeri, which received reflective STOP signs to assist children in safely crossing the roads. • The NTSA Teams in various parts of the country sensitised road users, calling upon them to join the global movement for low speeds in liveable cities worldwide. 7.3.21 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions The strategic focus of the ODPP for the year under review was guided by the ODPP Excellence Charter: Our Strategic Commitments 2020 - 2023. The Excellence Charter outlines the ODPP vision, mission, strategic commitments and activities identified to help the ODPP realize its mandate and serve its diverse stakeholders better. This Excellence Charter identifies 6 strategic commitments namely independence & integrity; lifelong learning; reshaping prosecutions; leadership; organizational effectiveness; and inter-agency networks. The overall aim is to transform the ODPP into a 21st century prosecution service which is more responsive to the needs of Mwananchi. Despite the myriad of challenges faced by the Office as a result of COVID-19, the Office achieved the following: Developed and reviewed a number of in-house policy documents and strategies geared towards enhancing accountability, transparency and consistency in the Office operations. These include the Office of Change Management, Risk Management Strategy, Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, ODPP Screening Guidelines, Branding Guidelines, Document Tracking Manual The Office inducted 49 new Prosecution Counsel and Research Officers. The ODPP in partnership with UNODC/PLEAD acquired a boat, MV ADIL to facilitate access to justice for the people of Lamu. Integrated of the ODPP Uadilifu case intake system with the Judiciary system; Installated servers in readiness of digitization of all ODPP records and rolled of the Uadilifu CMS; 7.3.22 Power of Mercy Advisory Committee The Power of Mercy Advisory Committee is a constitutional committee established pursuant to Article 133 of the Constitution whose core mandate is to advise the President on the exercise of the power of mercy. During the period under review the committee; • Received a total of 62 petitions from convicted offenders across correctional facilities in the country. • 202 petitions were procedurally reviewed by the Committee out of which 148 were recommended for interview and further consideration. • Conducted virtual hearings and interviews with 132 petitioners in 26 correctional facilities and made necessary recommendations. • Commissioned a research survey titled ‘Follow up Study on Pardoned Offenders in Kenya’. This was comprehensive research on convicted offenders who 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE received Executive clemency after promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. • Monitored the persons released and interacted with nineteen ex-offenders released under the Power of Mercy from various parts of the country, ten ex- offenders in Eastern and Central regions, and 9 in Coast region. 7.3.23 Probation and Aftercare Services Probation and Aftercare Service (PAS) is mandated to manage community corrections. The service implements three main programmes namely Probation, CSO and After Care as provided for in the Probation of Offenders Act Cap (64) and the Community Service Orders Act Cap (93). To support the administration of justice, the service received referrals and provided a total of 50,351 social inquiry reports to the wide justice sector. Table 7.14: Nature of social inquiry reports and gender distribution Nature of referral/ Social Inquiry Report Gender Male Female Adults Juvenile Adult Juvenile Total Probation social inquiry report 15366 1211 3429 182 20188 CSO Social inquiry Report 18941 433 3088 52 22514 Bail information 5481 380 497 12 6370 Alternative Dispute Resolution 153 4 48 1 206 Victim Impact 384 2 39 5 430 Resentencing 276 - 8 - 284 Aftercare 25 133 0 5 163 Power of Mercy 115 - 9 - 124 Plea-bargaining 45 0 1 0 46 Diversion 8 9 1 2 20 Care and protection - 4 - 2 6 Total 40794 2176 7120 261 50351 As a result of the social inquiry report submitted to the wider justice sector, 24,166 offenders were placed on non-custodial supervision orders. This included 10,799 probation orders, 13,173 CSO orders and 194 released on the Aftercare Programme. A total of 6,154 accused persons were recommended and admitted to bail/bond terms as shown below. Table 7.15: Placement on Supervision Orders and Recommended Bail/Bonds Type Of Placement Adult Gender Male Juveniles Adult Female Juveniles Total Probation Order 8580 1007 1046 166 10799 Community service order 10500 221 2435 17 13173 After Care 28 142 19 5 194 Total 19108 1370 3500 188 24166 Bail/Bond recommended and admitted 5281 380 479 12 6154 A total of 433 needy offenders serving non-custodial orders were empowered in various ways as shown in Table 3. Table 7.16: Type and beneficiaries of empowerment programmes Type of Empowerment Male Female Total School fees 190 52 242 Working Tools 12 11 23 Vocational Training 113 55 168 Total 315 118 433 300 probation officers were recruited and deployed to field stations while 157 probation officers were promoted to higher ranks. Diverse training for staff were undertaken as follows; Table 7.17: Areas of Trainings AREA OF TRAINING NUMBER TRAINED PARTNER SUPPORT Counselling awareness for middle level managers 22 Amani Counselling Centre Research methodologies for Kenya correctional services 12 RWI Leadership Training on Human rights 40 RWI Kenya Probation Risk Assessment for Violent Extremism Tool ( KP- RAVET) as a measure in the prevention and countering of violent extremism 26 Plead Project Refresher course for Drivers 9 GOK Prevention and countering violent extremism 60 Plead Project Management of Community Probation Volunteer programme 33 Plead Project Received 12 vehicles, 28 laptops, 1 tablet, and 30 desktop computer monitors which were allocated to stations and officers working in the 12 focal counties. Undertook a Children Art Competition on the theme of ‘Probation: A New Beginning’ under the four sub themes of Change, Lessons Learnt, Future, and COVID-19, which they described in a brief write- up. Through the competition, the children provided feedback on their experience as they navigated the justice system. 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6296 6296 7.3.24 State Law Office and Department of Justice The Honourable Attorney General is the Government’s principal legal advisor, responsible for representing the National Government in court or any other legal proceedings to which the National Government is a party (other than criminal proceedings) and for performing any other functions conferred to the Office by an Act of Parliament or by the President. The key achievements for the FY 2020/21 included; • Finalised and launched the Victim Protection Board Strategic Plan 2018/19- 2022/23. • Developed and forwarded to Parliament after public and stakeholders participation, the Victim Protection (General) Regulations, 2021. • Developed and forwarded to Parliament after public and stakeholders participation, the Victim Protection (Trust Fund) Regulations, 2021. • Prepared and forwarded to the legislative drafting department, the Victim Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2020. • Prepared and forwarded to the legislative drafting, the Victim Protection Act priority amendments. • Developed the Victim Rights Charter as per Section 32(2)(d) and the Board Charter that is intended to guide the conduct of the Board. • The approval by Cabinet of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights in February 2021. This is a comprehensive policy document that seeks to provide protection to all Kenyans from human rights violations by businesses, whether public or privately owned. The policy also provides guidance to businesses on their duty to respect human rights. • Developed the Conflict of Interest Bill that aims at providing a framework for management of conflict of interest in collaboration with EACC and other stakeholders. • Launched the National Ethics and Anti-Corruption Policy which seeks to reduce prevalence of corruption and unethical practices by among others, synergising efforts of all stakeholders involved in the fight against corruption. • The Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (NCIA) administered thirteen (13) disputes with a value of over Kshs.13 Billion (USD 130 Million). • The NCIA together with a network of China-Africa Joint Arbitration Centres’ (CAJAC) developed and adopted a Constitution and Rules for arbitration of disputes of Sino- African origin within the five member Centres. The Centre developed and shared a panelof arbitrators, mediators and neutrals for panel- listing to the shared CAJAC Panel. • The NCIA Centre developed and published the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (Virtual Hearings) Rules, 2020 • Negotiated Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA), Extradition and Transfer of Sentenced Persons Treaties with several Countries. • Finalised the model treaty on MLA, Extradition and Transfer of Sentenced Persons in consultation with the various competent authorities. • Commenced the drafting of Transfer of Sentenced Persons Regulations. • Received and processed a number of incoming and outgoing MLA, Extradition and Transfer of Sentenced Persons requests. 7.3.25 Witness Protection Agency The Witness Protection Agency (WPA) provides special protection, on behalf of the State, to witnesses who are facing potential risk or intimidation due to their co-operation with law enforcement agencies. The WPA provides the framework and procedures for giving special protection to witnesses to ensure an effective and efficient administration of justice in the country. During the period under review, WPA undertook the following; • Held National Coordination Mechanism Consultative Forum • Protected 80 witnesses under the WPP and 161 related persons. Futher, four cases involving witnesses who are protected were concluded and judgment passed. • Received 118 new applications into the WPP compared to 192 during the 2019 - 2020 period. This decline is attributed to the effects of COVID-19 pandemic, which lead to scaled down operations in the justice system. • Undertook sensitisation activities of The World Day Against Human Trafficking 2020. • Held the National Coordination Mechanism on migration quarterly consultation forum between 18th – 28th August 2020. • Presented recourse available for whistle blower protection under the Witness Protection system. • Held validation workshop on the guidelines on management of petty offenders, arrest and conditions on pre-trial detention. • Held Victim Protection Board public participation programme on the Victim Protection (General) Regulations, 2020 in Kisumu, Bomet and Kisii. 7.3.26 The CRADLE The Children’s Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit making and Non-Governmental Organisation committed to the protection, promotion and enhancement of the rights of the child through advocacy, legal representation, and law reform. The CRADLE works to realise a just society for children. The CRADLE undertook the following activities during the period under review to enhance access to justice for children; • Supported 400 clients on self-representation through training, drafting pleadings and ICT support. • Trained 40 lawyers on child rights • Referred 120 cases to pro bono lawyers. • Trained 60 paralegals on handling children during emergencies and pandemics. • Took up 503 new cases and supported 672 previous cases. This involved direct legal representation, legal advice, diversion, pre-trial briefing etc. • Offered psychosocial support through individual and group therapy to 413 children both in conflict with the law and child survivors of rape, • Undertook training for 60 practitioners in the months of November 2020 and April 2021. The webinar series were conducted every Thursday within those months. • Offered a Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) on Child Rights in Kenya with support from two academic institutions, • Launched an online platform for children to enhance advocacy and awareness on the rights of the child benefiting 3,000 children so far. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE APPENDICES Appendix 1: Filed Civil Cases by Case Type in High Court, FY 2020/21 High Court Station Adoption Civil Appeals Civil Misc Civil Matters Commercial Matters Commercial Miscella- neous Const Human & Rights Divorce Family Ap- peals Family Misc Income Tax Appeals Judicial Misc Judicial Review Probate Admin All civil cases Bomet 1 12 12 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 35 74 Bungoma 1 56 73 59 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 6 20 231 Busia 0 36 100 107 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 3 9 21 286 Chuka 0 19 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 67 Eldoret 4 14 37 22 1 0 34 7 1 5 0 4 8 26 163 Embu 9 34 56 9 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 4 7 11 180 Garissa 0 8 12 7 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 4 6 13 64 Garsen 0 3 1 1 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 23 Homa Bay 1 70 43 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 176 Kabarnet 0 15 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 3 17 48 Kajiado 3 42 52 34 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 6 73 229 Kakamega 4 59 153 160 3 3 27 0 12 0 0 0 6 24 451 Kapenguria 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 4 5 16 Kericho 1 28 50 39 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 83 216 Kerugoya 7 46 43 7 0 0 11 3 0 0 0 4 13 12 146 Kiambu 16 206 307 32 6 0 37 25 0 0 0 0 9 133 771 Kisii 6 51 31 6 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 1 8 4 131 Kisumu 8 134 225 17 12 0 107 10 8 0 0 6 14 34 575 Kitale 0 57 33 29 0 0 11 0 0 29 0 0 17 78 254 Kitui 4 52 85 11 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 1 4 10 176 Lodwar 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Machakos 10 168 239 32 0 0 61 1 0 6 0 13 20 60 610 Makueni 1 64 71 7 0 0 14 3 3 0 0 2 5 10 180 Malindi 1 91 118 49 1 0 53 7 0 1 0 1 9 31 362 Marsabit 1 17 15 27 0 0 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 88 Meru 4 141 102 26 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 4 32 356 Migori 0 51 50 54 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 188 Mil. Anti-corr. Div. 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Civil Div. 0 710 777 492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,979 Mil. Comm. Div. 0 314 0 0 939 1,797 0 0 0 0 201 0 0 0 3,251 Mil. Const. Div 0 0 0 0 0 0 454 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 454 Mil. Crim.Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mi. Family Div. 135 0 0 0 0 0 6 130 97 0 0 0 0 2,253 2,621 Mil. Jud. Rev. Div. 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 Mombasa 4 109 191 127 16 0 274 3 7 10 0 6 81 8 836 Muranga 1 47 69 14 0 0 11 3 6 0 0 8 11 23 193 Naivasha 1 50 50 8 0 0 4 5 2 3 0 1 7 16 147 Nakuru 14 95 201 34 1 3 40 26 9 1 0 0 23 108 555 Nanyuki 1 8 24 3 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 49 Narok 2 13 5 9 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 2 9 52 Nyamira 2 66 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 113 Nyandarua 2 0 3 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 Nyeri 6 50 96 9 0 0 25 24 21 3 1 9 21 23 288 Siaya 0 36 39 48 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 7 16 153 Vihiga 1 48 8 12 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 109 191 Voi 0 39 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 72 All courts 251 3,062 3,474 1,619 1,003 1,805 1,431 251 167 62 202 181 581 3,351 17,440 Appendix 2: Resolved civil cases by case type in High Court, FY 2020/21 High Court Station Adoption Civil Appeals Civil Misc Civil Matters Commercial Matters Commercial Miscella- neous Const Human & Rights Divorce Family Ap- peals Family Misc Income Tax Appeals Judicial Misc Judicial Review Probate Admin All civil cases Bomet 1 0 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 28 39 Bungoma 2 53 75 6 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 184 Busia 0 27 97 3 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 7 72 214 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6298 6298 Chuka 0 37 9 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 40 103 Eldoret 11 104 60 23 3 1 34 2 0 0 0 1 8 224 471 Embu 8 108 27 11 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 2 4 90 328 Garissa 0 8 0 7 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 27 Garsen 0 1 3 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 15 Homa Bay 2 45 73 11 0 0 26 0 0 2 0 0 4 237 400 Kabarnet 1 9 38 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 1 1 9 66 Kajiado 4 33 28 24 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 172 Kakamega 5 34 38 5 0 0 4 0 2 5 0 0 7 123 223 Kapenguria 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 12 Kericho 1 24 22 7 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 44 104 Kerugoya 15 84 23 8 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 1 4 21 179 Kiambu 26 89 177 7 1 0 17 7 0 0 0 0 4 173 501 Kisii 2 81 61 18 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 2 7 42 249 Kisumu 5 122 358 39 79 0 46 0 0 0 0 3 8 115 775 Kitale 0 3 17 14 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 0 1 69 116 Kitui 7 38 74 4 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 4 7 155 Lodwar 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Machakos 13 160 279 41 1 0 57 1 0 6 0 8 3 166 735 Makueni 0 18 43 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 10 78 Malindi 1 76 70 33 3 0 38 4 0 0 0 0 8 27 260 Marsabit 0 2 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 Meru 6 144 138 39 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 9 186 583 Migori 0 116 28 32 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 28 209 Mil. Anti-corr. Div. 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Civil Div. 0 306 1,274 285 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,869 Mil. C. & Tax Div. 117 0 1,579 2,397 0 0 0 0 4,169 Mil. Const. Div 0 0 0 0 0 0 407 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 407 Mil. Criminal Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mi. Family Div. 208 0 0 0 0 0 2 21 13 19 0 0 0 1,293 1,556 Mil. Jud. Rev. Div. 2 0 0 0 0 91 0 Mombasa 18 67 80 82 10 0 162 31 18 44 0 3 20 348 883 Muranga 1 36 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 112 Naivasha 5 95 151 13 0 0 9 7 0 6 0 0 6 15 307 Nakuru 16 198 271 66 0 0 24 9 4 0 0 0 27 310 925 Nanyuki 1 1 21 2 0 0 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 37 Narok 0 42 2 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 75 Nyamira 2 36 74 2 0 0 9 0 0 3 0 1 3 6 136 Nyandarua 3 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 24 Nyeri 6 69 64 29 0 0 17 2 1 1 3 3 12 214 421 Siaya 1 45 49 6 1 0 17 0 0 3 0 2 2 13 139 Vihiga 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 38 Voi 0 13 14 1 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 44 All courts 371 2,468 3,796 862 1,679 2,398 1,186 85 39 109 79 122 343 4,155 17,692 Appendix 3: Filed and Resolved Criminal Cases by Case Type in High Court, FY 2020/21 High Court Station Murder Criminal Application Criminal Appeal Criminal Revision All Murder Criminal Application Criminal Appeal Criminal Revision All Bomet 21 25 13 38 97 3 10 12 5 30 Bungoma 58 52 99 120 329 44 21 25 51 141 Busia 26 51 20 57 154 38 21 17 2 78 Chuka 14 28 18 77 137 7 33 22 53 115 Eldoret 60 54 19 74 207 100 30 103 82 315 Embu 35 34 24 124 217 15 33 67 141 256 Garissa 3 20 18 87 128 4 33 37 53 127 Garsen 10 17 18 65 110 4 19 15 55 93 Homa Bay 50 43 31 66 190 27 53 38 71 189 Kabarnet 33 31 29 38 131 13 9 36 26 84 Kajiado 18 36 18 38 110 3 23 25 52 103 Kakamega 50 51 23 50 174 11 44 17 22 94 Kapenguria 18 18 3 37 76 14 20 7 6 47 Kericho 30 39 11 97 177 33 35 37 3 108 Kerugoya 31 6 5 119 161 16 1 17 154 188 Kiambu 60 75 93 279 507 26 32 50 111 219 Kisii 30 13 13 10 66 28 18 53 36 135 Kisumu 30 62 33 89 214 29 42 48 36 155 Kitale 59 206 54 268 587 17 58 22 201 298 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Kitui 41 45 18 93 197 21 53 44 90 208 Lodwar 6 0 0 1 7 3 1 6 1 11 Machakos 40 91 65 167 363 31 64 80 47 222 Makueni 23 54 63 121 261 37 46 77 72 232 Malindi 63 54 57 104 278 35 14 60 65 174 Marsabit 19 6 2 4 31 5 5 8 2 20 Meru 73 92 109 227 501 74 91 92 236 493 Migori 16 25 27 45 113 14 8 14 24 60 Mil. Anti-corr. Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 Mil. Civil Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. C. & Tax Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Const. Div 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Criminal Div. 90 344 104 380 918 36 134 71 156 397 Mi. Family Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Jud. Rev. Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mombasa 42 108 40 31 221 27 36 58 15 136 Muranga 39 29 19 189 276 8 6 30 169 213 Naivasha 27 228 23 60 338 7 31 42 22 102 Nakuru 46 63 18 121 248 36 100 80 68 284 Nanyuki 12 27 34 10 83 4 14 24 12 54 Narok 6 19 20 131 176 4 47 33 127 211 Nyamira 20 5 23 45 93 21 3 24 42 90 Nyandarua 5 4 0 3 12 3 2 11 4 20 Nyeri 20 43 23 150 236 25 25 83 235 368 Siaya 26 73 26 130 255 41 100 66 101 308 Vihiga 60 0 56 15 131 2 0 1 15 18 Voi 1 96 20 157 274 2 29 18 68 117 All courts 1,311 2,267 1,289 3,917 8,784 868 1,344 1,570 2,740 6,522 Appendix 4: Pending Civil Cases by Case Type in High Court, 30 th June 2021 High Court Station Adoption Civil Appeals Civil Misc Civil Matters Commercial Matters Commercial Miscellaneous Const. Human & Rights Divorce Family Appeals Family Misc Income Tax Appeals Judicial Misc Judicial Re- view Probate Admin All civil cases Bomet 2 35 89 28 1 1 10 0 0 5 0 0 2 223 396 Bungoma 4 492 516 235 21 0 40 1 2 3 0 11 20 1,014 2,359 Busia 0 57 643 172 1 1 17 2 4 10 0 5 50 1,127 2,089 Chuka 0 10 46 41 0 1 8 1 2 47 0 1 173 143 473 Eldoret 3 89 494 159 1 1 47 32 2 30 0 9 31 189 1,087 Embu 5 90 247 27 0 0 57 6 0 282 0 4 7 1,554 2,279 Garissa 0 7 36 93 0 0 33 1 0 0 0 4 7 76 257 Garsen 1 23 6 10 7 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 5 23 82 Homa Bay 5 34 22 40 1 0 20 0 1 1 0 3 18 334 479 Kabarnet 1 20 44 8 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 13 57 150 Kajiado 2 60 26 76 12 1 22 3 1 24 0 11 27 21 286 Kakamega 5 275 810 202 4 3 123 17 15 22 0 0 9 1,061 2,546 Kapenguria 0 4 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 7 11 1 37 Kericho 16 44 136 116 119 0 68 0 0 0 0 12 16 613 1,140 Kerugoya 3 40 110 101 1 2 5 7 2 12 0 4 22 1,802 2,111 Kiambu 29 386 564 128 47 4 115 29 0 8 1 0 40 118 1,469 Kisii 8 66 51 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 24 160 Kisumu 22 129 85 188 23 0 199 11 9 1 0 20 78 122 887 Kitale 10 365 282 59 6 1 10 2 2 45 0 0 59 327 1,168 Kitui 1 130 60 18 5 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 30 259 Lodwar 0 2 9 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 14 34 Machakos 66 466 660 148 6 2 90 4 0 1 0 31 144 592 2,210 Makueni 1 82 135 24 5 0 19 3 7 4 0 1 4 100 385 Malindi 2 128 283 120 1 18 90 13 0 12 3 8 24 145 847 Marsabit 1 15 19 27 0 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 87 Meru 3 244 302 1,262 2 3 1 13 1 59 0 17 508 286 2,701 Migori 2 38 81 33 1 31 23 0 0 4 0 1 55 177 446 Mil. Anti-corr. Div. 0 15 30 3 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 142 Mil. Civil Div. 0 2,635 2,128 2,218 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,985 Mil. C. & Tax Div. 0 200 30 3 3,420 2,732 7 0 0 0 187 0 0 0 6,579 Mil. Const. Div 0 0 0 0 0 0 643 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 643 Mil. Criminal Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mi. Family Div. 103 3 0 436 1 0 5 136 186 251 0 2 0 4,461 5,584 Mil. Jud. Rev. Div. 0 0 1 91 59 0 73 0 0 0 0 33 962 0 1,219 Mombasa 7 2,156 2,841 100 41 5 520 78 72 124 16 733 227 425 7,345 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6300 6300 Muranga 38 581 558 124 2 0 148 8 18 40 0 21 56 1,131 2,725 Naivasha 1 110 104 10 0 0 2 2 2 6 0 2 4 72 315 Nakuru 21 710 1,001 734 6 4 22 26 9 41 2 4 237 2,536 5,353 Nanyuki 2 39 20 10 0 2 12 3 3 0 1 4 4 38 138 Narok 4 10 101 22 5 0 26 2 0 4 0 4 7 58 243 Nyamira 0 39 46 23 11 0 20 0 0 3 0 1 0 29 172 Nyandarua 5 50 99 33 2 0 21 0 0 10 0 1 4 6 231 Nyeri 24 209 685 232 1 1 51 43 38 9 2 15 27 717 2,054 Siaya 0 31 39 7 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 4 88 Vihiga 1 48 8 12 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 73 155 Voi 1 48 5 25 56 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 8 52 199 All courts 399 10,21 13,456 7,407 3,871 2,825 2,617 446 377 1,071 212 1,047 2,870 19,781 66,594 Appendix 5: Pending Criminal Cases by Case Type in High Court, 30 th June 2021 High Court Station Murder Criminal Application Criminal Appeal Criminal Revision All CR cases Bomet 106 56 36 112 310 Bungoma 147 170 265 196 778 Busia 57 34 24 67 182 Chuka 66 44 28 77 215 Eldoret 470 193 220 137 1,020 Embu 167 88 70 209 534 Garissa 62 148 62 178 450 Garsen 30 25 41 17 113 Homa Bay 172 2 7 118 299 Kabarnet 164 103 13 105 385 Kajiado 55 48 4 177 284 Kakamega 372 107 183 85 747 Kapenguria 32 22 14 75 143 Kericho 172 85 80 297 634 Kerugoya 67 17 4 194 282 Kiambu 220 380 182 768 1,550 Kisii 62 89 22 17 190 Kisumu 115 136 92 317 660 Kitale 196 577 308 981 2,062 Kitui 136 8 130 107 381 Lodwar 31 33 11 4 79 Machakos 203 356 137 466 1,162 Makueni 19 20 4 189 232 Malindi 72 130 4 319 525 Marsabit 24 1 2 2 29 Meru 410 334 374 439 1,557 Migori 21 105 19 99 244 Mil. Anti-corr. Div. 3 46 2 14 65 Mil. Civil Div. 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. C. & Tax Div. 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Const. Div 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Criminal Div. 309 739 345 756 2,149 Mi. Family Div. 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Jud. Rev. Div. 0 0 0 0 0 Mombasa 352 544 813 611 2,320 Muranga 323 162 596 309 1,390 Naivasha 64 214 19 111 408 Nakuru 342 16 267 192 817 Nanyuki 74 140 186 310 710 Narok 20 76 3 28 127 Nyamira 26 5 6 7 44 Nyandarua 86 63 18 25 192 Nyeri 72 205 157 94 528 Siaya 30 7 27 11 75 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Vihiga 48 0 47 0 95 Voi 23 114 15 188 340 All courts 5,420 5,642 4,837 8,408 24,307 Appendix 6: Average Time to Disposition in High Court, FY 2020/21 High Court Station Average time to ( disposition-CR (Days) Average time to disposition-CC (Days) Average time to disposition-ALL (days) Bomet 536 804 706 Bungoma 536 1,458 1,059 Busia 346 2,140 1,683 Chuka 187 769 501 Eldoret 864 2,055 1,577 Embu 321 1,664 1,034 Garissa 365 567 401 Garsen 248 461 279 Homa Bay 369 1,499 1,138 Kabarnet 398 304 356 Kajiado 252 538 434 Kakamega 644 2,777 2,286 Kapenguria 337 942 458 Kericho 790 1,839 1,411 Kerugoya 358 1,442 965 Kiambu 420 491 470 Kisii 345 1,234 928 Kisumu 429 1,616 1,417 Kitale 185 2,230 754 Kitui 437 486 458 Lodwar 621 212 584 Machakos 585 1,492 1,284 Makueni 379 429 391 Malindi 473 753 643 Marsabit 192 164 164 Meru 319 1,668 1,093 Migori 233 693 590 Mil. Anti-corr. Div. 355 355 Mil. Civil Div. 1,715 1,715 Mil. C. & Tax Div. 1,931 1,931 Mil. Const. Div 937 937 Mil. Criminal Div. 642 Mi. Family Div. 1,373 1,373 Mil. Jud. Rev. Div. 702 702 Mombasa 851 1,624 1,505 Muranga 266 1,739 774 Naivasha 648 1,035 930 Nakuru 709 1,932 1,662 Nanyuki 547 522 537 Narok 258 1,036 467 Nyamira 138 286 227 Nyandarua 731 685 705 Nyeri 420 2,573 1,606 Siaya 261 338 287 Vihiga 1,419 1,400 1,402 Voi 149 542 256 All Courts 455 1,143 893 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6302 6302 Appendix 7: Average Time to Disposition in ELRC, FY 2020/21 ELRC Station Average time to disposition Eldoret 988 Kericho 573 Kisumu 1,102 Mombasa 1,158 Nairobi 1,221 Nakuru 1,262 Nyeri 468 All Courts 967 Appendix 8: Average Time to Disposition in ELC, FY 2020/21 ELC Station Average time to disposition Bungoma 1,704 Busia 1,690 Chuka 306 Eldoret 1,582 Embu 1,963 Garissa 1,052 Kajiado 989 Kakamega 1,105 Kericho 1,255 Kerugoya 1,314 Kisii 1,698 Kisumu 748 Kitale 1,531 Machakos 964 Makueni 945 Malindi 1,567 Meru 662 Migori 961 Milimani 1,711 Mombasa 1,398 Muranga 845 Nakuru 1,393 Narok 1,313 Nyandarua 788 Nyeri 736 Thika 843 All Courts 1,195 Appendix 9: Filed, Resolved and Pending Cases in Magistrates’ Courts, FY 2020/21 Court Station Pending Cases June 2020 Filed Cases Resolved Cases Pending Cases June 2021 Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All Baricho 1,560 1,114 2,674 1,368 317 1,685 1,112 305 1,417 1,816 1,126 2,942 Bomet 1,366 578 1,944 2,111 222 2,333 2,161 229 2,390 1,316 571 1,887 Bondo 609 456 1,065 1,877 694 2,571 1,754 586 2,340 732 590 1,322 Bungoma 942 1,151 2,093 1,990 1,207 3,197 1,764 433 2,197 1,168 1,925 3,093 Busia 5,363 1,732 7,095 4,423 1,243 5,666 3,331 697 4,028 6,455 2,278 8,733 Butali 1,221 890 2,111 834 500 1,334 444 221 665 1,611 1,169 2,780 Butere 876 1,080 1,956 771 459 1,230 753 619 1,372 894 1,144 2,038 Chuka 1,698 915 2,613 1,139 527 1,666 1,585 447 2,032 1,252 995 2,247 Dadaab N/A N/A N/A 52 3 55 19 3 22 77 0 77 Eldama Ravine 706 195 901 2,077 210 2,287 1,620 126 1,746 1,163 279 1,442 Eldoret 9,219 4,053 13,272 6,255 2,713 8,968 5,177 1,736 6,913 10,297 5,030 15,327 Embu 2,244 510 2,754 1,922 573 2,495 1,941 553 2,494 2,225 530 2,755 Engineer 540 158 698 4,174 378 4,552 4,025 329 4,354 689 229 918 Garissa 1,439 303 1,742 1,985 147 2,132 2,058 58 2,116 1,366 392 1,758 Garsen 473 122 595 367 61 428 279 18 297 561 165 726 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Gatundu 944 939 1,883 1,674 1,040 2,714 1,547 589 2,136 1,073 1,390 2,463 Gichugu 600 454 1,054 1,280 250 1,530 1,131 219 1,350 749 485 1,234 Githongo 1,083 152 1,235 630 205 835 1,098 157 1,255 615 200 815 Githunguri 708 411 1,119 955 322 1,277 861 488 1,349 802 565 1,367 Hamisi 1,068 70 1,138 942 140 1,082 868 42 910 1,142 168 1,310 Hola 390 33 423 746 34 780 728 52 780 408 31 439 Homa Bay 1,428 969 2,397 2,032 619 2,651 1,761 677 2,438 1,699 911 2,610 Isiolo 1,457 132 1,589 968 169 1,137 731 133 864 1,694 168 1,862 Iten 392 67 459 1,115 217 1,332 1,074 116 1,190 433 170 603 JKIA 144 0 144 179 0 179 183 0 183 140 0 140 Kabarnet 340 21 361 1,174 112 1,286 978 56 1,034 536 83 619 Kahawa 0 0 0 47 0 47 29 0 29 18 0 18 Kajiado 2,287 2,296 4,583 1,475 719 2,194 1,102 281 1,383 2,660 2,734 5,394 Kakamega 2,382 4,778 7,160 2,328 1,353 3,681 2,052 498 2,550 2,658 5,633 8,291 Kakuma 333 65 398 360 0 360 226 1 227 467 64 531 Kaloleni 239 367 606 463 420 883 451 627 1,078 251 540 791 Kandara 1,700 1,040 2,740 2,290 764 3,054 2,207 705 2,912 1,783 1,099 2,882 Kangema 550 339 889 1,038 171 1,209 989 183 1,172 599 327 926 Kangundo 1,418 227 1,645 2,718 671 3,389 2,297 381 2,678 1,839 517 2,356 Kapenguria 1,927 241 2,168 1,362 54 1,416 1,047 58 1,105 2,242 237 2,479 Kapsabet 3,885 1,368 5,253 2,162 698 2,860 2,028 576 2,604 4,019 1,490 5,509 Karatina 1,177 1,186 2,363 981 527 1,508 913 326 1,239 1,245 1,387 2,632 Kehancha 524 245 769 1,892 247 2,139 1,880 190 2,070 536 302 838 Kericho 3,326 1,261 4,587 4,183 572 4,755 3,862 340 4,202 3,647 1,493 5,140 Keroka 986 279 1,265 1,957 412 2,369 1,779 166 1,945 1,164 525 1,689 Kerugoya 1,103 1,512 2,615 1,102 856 1,958 921 554 1,475 1,284 1,814 3,098 Kiambu 1,013 988 2,001 3,209 1,521 4,730 2,848 836 3,684 1,374 1,673 3,047 Kibera 12,764 0 12,764 6,152 0 6,152 5,105 0 5,105 13,811 0 13,811 Kigumo 3,372 457 3,829 1,724 631 2,355 1,155 288 1,443 3,941 800 4,741 Kikuyu 2,804 2,421 5,225 1,349 1,004 2,353 863 453 1,316 3,290 2,972 6,262 Kilgoris 461 178 639 705 47 752 590 114 704 576 167 743 Kilifi 1,707 452 2,159 1,534 1,066 2,600 976 467 1,443 2,265 1,055 3,320 Kilungu 736 467 1,203 1,976 495 2,471 1,760 243 2,003 952 719 1,671 Kimilili 1,751 617 2,368 989 392 1,381 1,014 171 1,185 1,726 838 2,564 Kisii 3,368 3,797 7,165 3,170 2,045 5,215 2,571 1,147 3,718 3,967 4,695 8,662 Kisumu 6,756 4,211 10,967 1,712 2,290 4,002 1,320 1,078 2,398 7,148 5,423 12,571 Kitale 6,541 1,173 7,714 5,748 579 6,327 4,412 761 5,173 7,877 991 8,868 Kithimani 1,661 261 1,922 1,715 233 1,948 1,201 174 1,375 2,175 324 2,499 Kitui 1,452 2,392 3,844 1,690 1,040 2,730 1,726 800 2,526 1,416 2,632 4,048 Kwale 1,997 2,068 4,065 962 410 1,372 1,159 263 1,422 1,800 2,287 4,087 Kyuso 90 70 160 263 51 314 248 65 313 105 56 161 Lamu 580 38 618 715 43 758 573 27 600 137 85 222 Limuru 961 2,092 3,053 1,808 1,038 2,846 1,695 430 2,125 1,074 2,700 3,774 Lodwar 1,167 85 1,252 762 62 824 575 23 598 1,354 136 1,490 Loitoktok 104 111 215 363 140 503 330 104 434 137 149 286 Machakos 2,450 2,821 5,271 4,998 1,721 6,719 4,193 1,320 5,513 3,255 3,222 6,477 Makadara 10,694 0 10,694 9,174 0 9,174 6,254 0 6,254 13,616 0 13,616 Makindu 840 1,576 2,416 1,989 514 2,503 1,610 228 1,838 1,219 1,862 3,081 Makueni 509 406 915 448 456 904 454 198 652 503 664 1,167 Malindi 3,203 430 3,633 1,382 828 2,210 912 417 1,329 3,673 841 4,514 Mandera 237 37 274 711 46 757 658 46 704 290 37 327 Maralal 274 37 311 834 99 933 799 67 866 309 69 378 Mariakani 848 931 1,779 1,536 446 1,982 877 309 1,186 1,507 1,092 2,599 Marimanti 867 136 1,003 1,143 114 1,257 1,072 74 1,146 938 176 1,114 Marsabit 804 21 825 724 92 816 744 88 832 784 31 815 Maseno 1,238 392 1,630 1,256 428 1,684 1,148 251 1,399 1,346 569 1,915 Maua 4,119 378 4,497 2,469 390 2,859 2,676 409 3,085 3,912 359 4,271 Mavoko 1,566 3,839 5,405 2,755 1,744 4,499 2,020 1,012 3,032 2,301 4,571 6,872 Mbita 869 70 939 1,235 188 1,423 1,147 165 1,312 957 105 1,062 Meru 1,715 4,327 6,042 2,861 717 3,578 2,774 763 3,537 1,802 4,281 6,083 Migori 1,170 2,597 3,767 1,558 372 1,930 1,329 674 2,003 1,399 2,295 3,694 Mil. Anti corrup- tion 168 0 168 66 0 66 21 0 21 213 0 213 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6304 6304 Mil. Childrens 1,310 7,503 8,813 33 1,885 1,918 30 1,664 1,694 1,313 7,724 9,037 Mil. Commercial 0 48,510 48,510 0 11,324 11,324 0 5,135 5,135 0 54,743 54,743 Milimani CM 33,089 0 33,089 15,376 0 15,376 12,184 0 12,184 5,537 0 5,537 Molo 3,386 956 4,342 3,648 617 4,265 3,027 457 3,484 4,007 1,116 5,123 Mombasa 19,549 28,546 48,095 5,736 2,056 7,792 4,694 1,810 6,504 20,591 28,792 49,383 Moyale 113 55 168 639 37 676 682 65 747 70 27 97 Mpeketoni 90 68 158 965 56 1,021 827 48 875 228 94 322 Msambweni 375 184 559 633 335 968 606 148 754 402 371 773 Mukurwe-ini 210 730 940 1,117 199 1,316 1,131 138 1,269 196 795 991 Mumias 1,248 557 1,805 1,072 349 1,421 1,078 370 1,448 1,242 536 1,778 Murang'a 2,840 4,425 7,265 1,821 1,340 3,161 1,668 876 2,544 2,993 4,889 7,882 Mutomo 661 64 725 609 96 705 642 152 794 634 166 800 Mwingi 1,330 497 1,827 955 289 1,244 865 272 1,137 1,420 514 1,934 Nairobi City 444 159 603 170 249 419 316 596 912 298 196 494 Naivasha 4,147 3,259 7,406 2,969 1,317 4,286 2,359 1,285 3,644 4,757 3,291 8,048 Nakuru 12,941 19,232 32,173 6,421 3,001 9,422 4,651 972 5,623 14,711 21,261 35,972 Nanyuki 2,175 1,654 3,829 1,929 371 2,300 1,960 245 2,205 2,144 1,780 3,924 Narok 1,115 1,920 3,035 1,652 482 2,134 1,227 331 1,558 1,540 2,071 3,611 Ndhiwa 659 428 1,087 495 328 823 345 128 473 809 628 1,437 Ngong' 2,148 220 2,368 2,017 631 2,648 1,197 316 1,513 2,968 535 3,503 Nkubu 778 311 1,089 1,005 380 1,385 1,165 331 1,496 618 360 978 Nyahururu 2,761 2,495 5,256 2,258 115 2,373 1,233 230 1,463 3,786 2,476 6,262 Nyamira 1,514 896 2,410 1,776 436 2,212 1,863 640 2,503 1,427 720 2,147 Nyando 2,293 2,572 4,865 1,777 918 2,695 1,640 853 2,493 2,430 2,637 5,067 Nyeri 1,711 2,579 4,290 3,654 1,188 4,842 4,042 1,077 5,119 1,323 2,690 4,013 Ogembo 2,241 1,595 3,836 2,395 561 2,956 1,849 342 2,191 2,787 1,814 4,601 Othaya 565 164 729 1,097 53 1,150 1,128 146 1,274 536 73 609 Oyugis 1,433 273 1,706 1,147 884 2,031 956 289 1,245 1,624 868 2,492 Rongo 336 959 1,295 733 291 1,024 673 307 980 396 943 1,339 Ruiru 433 163 596 2,607 815 3,422 1,920 795 2,715 1,120 187 1,307 Runyenjes 815 174 989 731 158 889 669 349 1,018 877 129 1,006 Shanzu 4,038 0 4,038 2,478 0 2,478 2,730 0 2,730 3,786 0 3,786 Siakago 1,460 504 1,964 1,183 407 1,590 1,099 455 1,554 505 1,135 1,640 Siaya 954 1,126 2,080 1,390 825 2,215 1,168 225 1,393 1,176 1,726 2,902 Sirisia 963 206 1,169 733 66 799 561 23 584 1,135 249 1,384 Sotik 470 472 942 1,996 285 2,281 1,771 140 1,911 695 617 1,312 Tamu 359 64 423 551 138 689 602 208 810 310 112 422 Taveta 512 101 613 717 80 797 622 62 684 607 119 726 Tawa 648 114 762 590 107 697 463 112 575 775 109 884 Thika 3,856 6,902 10,758 4,001 942 4,943 3,963 1,402 5,365 3,894 6,442 10,336 Tigania 1,448 389 1,837 2,129 356 2,485 1,987 210 2,197 1,590 535 2,125 Tononoka 222 362 584 74 510 584 72 876 948 224 736 960 Ukwala 595 112 707 985 334 1,319 621 93 714 959 353 1,312 Vihiga 1,675 1,367 3,042 1,726 99 1,825 1,351 240 1,591 2,050 1,226 3,276 Voi 825 889 1,714 2,193 120 2,313 1,551 343 1,894 1,467 702 2,169 Wajir 749 57 806 939 9 948 875 30 905 813 58 871 Wang'uru 1,214 691 1,905 1,240 469 1,709 943 123 1,066 1,511 1,037 2,548 Webuye 1,679 604 2,283 820 45 865 957 139 1,096 1,542 512 2,054 Winam 2,410 471 2,881 1,641 413 2,054 1,560 414 1,974 2,491 470 2,961 Wundanyi 309 101 410 1,412 118 1,530 1,364 108 1,472 357 113 470 All Courts 266,599 217,265 483,864 233,318 77,152 310,47 200,462 52,810 253,27 267,145 245,309 512,454 Appendix 10: Filed Criminal and Civil cases in Magistrates’ Courts, FY 2020/21 Court Station CRIMINAL CASES CIVIL CASES Crim- inal Cases Sexual Offenc- es In- quest Chil- dren Crimi- nal Traffic All Crim- inal Cases Civil Cases Pro- bate And Admin Divorce Separa- tion Workman Compensa- tion Chil- dren Civil All Civil Cases Baricho 1,086 60 7 0 215 1,368 151 156 1 0 9 317 Bomet 1,834 76 4 2 195 2,111 108 69 10 0 35 222 Bondo 1,557 100 2 1 217 1,877 125 526 10 4 29 694 Bungoma 1,713 95 5 9 168 1,990 894 269 15 0 29 1,207 Busia 3,492 191 10 2 728 4,423 575 619 17 0 32 1,243 Butali 678 41 7 1 107 834 321 165 2 1 11 500 Butere 624 78 3 14 52 771 94 318 4 1 42 459 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Chuka 860 82 7 0 190 1,139 208 273 20 1 25 527 Dadaab 43 8 0 0 1 52 0 0 0 0 3 3 Eldama Ravine 1,670 66 1 8 332 2,077 76 100 5 1 28 210 Eldoret 4,543 355 32 4 1,321 6,255 1,953 451 138 0 171 2,713 Embu 1,593 58 4 0 267 1,922 218 216 33 0 106 573 Engineer 3,847 124 6 19 178 4,174 144 201 8 3 22 378 Garissa 1,303 47 6 0 629 1,985 67 0 1 0 79 147 Garsen 269 25 3 6 64 367 51 2 2 0 6 61 Gatundu 1,424 48 0 5 197 1,674 404 573 30 0 33 1,040 Gichugu 1,126 33 12 1 108 1,280 69 152 6 0 23 250 Githongo 525 30 0 26 49 630 40 119 11 0 35 205 Githunguri 742 50 0 5 158 955 122 171 13 0 16 322 Hamisi 845 60 6 1 30 942 47 83 0 0 10 140 Hola 654 38 1 10 43 746 18 5 0 2 9 34 Homa Bay 1,330 68 13 0 621 2,032 238 346 17 0 18 619 Isiolo 809 28 1 3 127 968 138 12 6 0 13 169 Iten 941 36 5 1 132 1,115 107 75 7 0 28 217 JKIA 171 3 0 0 5 179 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kabarnet 1,006 50 2 8 108 1,174 54 41 1 0 16 112 Kahawa 47 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kajiado 888 73 4 0 510 1,475 491 162 32 0 34 719 Kakamega 1,688 177 6 0 457 2,328 539 749 25 0 40 1,353 Kakuma 262 45 3 0 50 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kaloleni 343 52 0 3 65 463 355 63 2 0 0 420 Kandara 1,730 128 3 9 420 2,290 299 439 8 2 16 764 Kangema 855 61 2 1 119 1,038 47 104 6 0 14 171 Kangundo 2,273 99 5 1 340 2,718 274 357 19 1 20 671 Kapenguria 1,114 73 9 31 135 1,362 24 9 1 1 19 54 Kapsabet 1,837 250 5 3 67 2,162 158 486 27 0 27 698 Karatina 693 47 3 6 232 981 129 361 13 0 24 527 Kehancha 1,419 79 0 60 334 1,892 161 77 7 1 1 247 Kericho 3,685 140 4 4 350 4,183 259 263 33 0 17 572 Keroka 1,392 59 2 2 502 1,957 299 64 12 0 37 412 Kerugoya 971 43 5 4 79 1,102 196 608 24 0 28 856 Kiambu 2,608 66 4 23 508 3,209 839 590 56 0 36 1,521 Kibera 2,126 227 2 1 3,796 6,152 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kigumo 1,469 122 4 16 113 1,724 345 238 6 2 40 631 Kikuyu 945 61 7 0 336 1,349 471 384 37 0 112 1,004 Kilgoris 617 31 2 19 36 705 31 10 1 0 5 47 Kilifi 1,053 145 8 7 321 1,534 659 337 28 0 42 1,066 Kilungu 1,001 88 6 5 876 1,976 341 97 5 0 52 495 Kimilili 807 76 3 12 91 989 237 119 10 4 22 392 Kisii 2,720 145 1 3 301 3,170 1,162 723 65 2 93 2,045 Kisumu 1,207 45 2 27 431 1,712 1,175 939 97 0 79 2,290 Kitale 4,664 422 15 68 579 5,748 313 114 14 2 136 579 Kithimani 1,342 85 2 8 278 1,715 107 75 0 0 51 233 Kitui 1,125 82 4 1 478 1,690 430 535 44 0 31 1,040 Kwale 549 107 1 49 256 962 259 73 10 4 64 410 Kyuso 183 27 0 3 50 263 18 14 8 0 11 51 Lamu 586 44 0 23 62 715 27 5 0 0 11 43 Limuru 921 49 9 6 823 1,808 596 295 29 35 83 1,038 Lodwar 632 86 3 2 39 762 15 3 1 0 43 62 Loitoktok 239 26 1 50 47 363 44 34 2 0 60 140 Machakos 4,455 222 1 20 300 4,998 1,164 460 26 0 71 1,721 Makadara 6,053 363 3 11 2,744 9,174 0 0 0 0 0 0 Makindu 1,088 154 1 5 741 1,989 386 96 6 0 26 514 Makueni 354 35 3 0 56 448 199 228 9 1 19 456 Malindi 1,033 100 2 20 227 1,382 552 231 12 0 33 828 Mandera 519 38 3 1 150 711 33 1 0 0 12 46 Maralal 635 21 2 5 171 834 39 13 5 0 42 99 Mariakani 909 130 0 7 490 1,536 362 35 9 1 39 446 Marimanti 1,005 40 0 10 88 1,143 42 35 3 0 34 114 Marsabit 601 37 1 0 85 724 48 13 1 0 30 92 Maseno 941 85 3 3 224 1,256 256 154 4 3 11 428 Maua 2,056 161 0 51 201 2,469 174 147 9 0 60 390 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6306 6306 Mavoko 1,565 73 17 1 1,099 2,755 1,554 113 42 0 35 1,744 Mbita 1,059 60 6 0 110 1,235 67 106 8 0 7 188 Meru 2,080 63 15 40 663 2,861 383 238 37 0 59 717 Migori 1,310 112 12 1 123 1,558 110 212 36 1 13 372 Mil. Anticor- ruption 66 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Childrens 4 12 0 17 0 33 155 0 0 0 1,730 1,885 Mil. Commer- cial 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,989 86 1,202 37 10 11,324 Milimani CM 8,182 40 13 0 7,141 15,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 Molo 2,586 159 0 16 887 3,648 352 133 12 0 120 617 Mombasa 3,469 197 13 0 2,057 5,736 1,777 205 73 1 0 2,056 Moyale 473 27 2 1 136 639 10 1 0 0 26 37 Mpeketoni 837 55 0 11 62 965 11 38 1 0 6 56 Msambweni 446 88 0 8 91 633 261 23 1 0 50 335 Mukurwe-ini 996 23 4 1 93 1,117 42 152 2 0 3 199 Mumias 836 53 4 30 149 1,072 164 154 8 2 21 349 Murang'a 1,447 45 19 1 309 1,821 361 942 18 2 17 1,340 Mutomo 508 16 0 1 84 609 55 31 0 1 9 96 Mwingi 772 72 2 0 109 955 154 117 10 0 8 289 Nairobi City 152 3 0 0 15 170 244 2 0 0 3 249 Naivasha 1,800 98 14 29 1,028 2,969 785 364 27 1 140 1,317 Nakuru 4,160 252 17 153 1,839 6,421 1,859 777 142 0 223 3,001 Nanyuki 1,589 64 15 7 254 1,929 176 131 10 0 54 371 Narok 1,030 120 2 2 498 1,652 200 107 6 0 169 482 Ndhiwa 351 36 1 0 107 495 99 203 16 4 6 328 Ngong' 1,209 102 8 5 693 2,017 422 83 27 1 98 631 Nkubu 583 53 3 9 357 1,005 137 192 11 0 40 380 Nyahururu 1,719 136 3 15 385 2,258 62 17 1 0 35 115 Nyamira 1,363 100 14 3 296 1,776 279 123 16 0 18 436 Nyando 1,391 84 6 9 287 1,777 323 538 16 1 40 918 Nyeri 3,035 99 10 93 417 3,654 571 528 29 1 59 1,188 Ogembo 2,063 163 4 8 157 2,395 394 108 22 0 37 561 Othaya 1,009 19 0 0 69 1,097 18 28 3 0 4 53 Oyugis 873 77 1 1 195 1,147 304 553 12 2 13 884 Rongo 631 37 4 2 59 733 130 132 12 1 16 291 Ruiru 1,819 49 1 1 737 2,607 569 86 86 4 70 815 Runyenjes 518 24 1 10 178 731 54 92 4 0 8 158 Shanzu 1,373 164 2 5 934 2,478 0 0 0 0 0 0 Siakago 1,005 77 1 7 93 1,183 150 234 6 0 17 407 Siaya 1,202 72 0 0 116 1,390 226 580 6 0 13 825 Sirisia 650 51 0 6 26 733 45 9 1 2 9 66 Sotik 1,721 99 4 7 165 1,996 115 128 6 3 33 285 Tamu 405 45 0 24 77 551 58 60 3 1 16 138 Taveta 593 43 1 46 34 717 34 8 0 0 38 80 Tawa 474 57 0 1 58 590 79 21 2 0 5 107 Thika 2,792 128 19 1 1,061 4,001 555 214 49 0 124 942 Tigania 1,815 84 3 3 224 2,129 141 162 7 0 46 356 Tononoka 10 26 0 38 0 74 187 0 0 0 323 510 Ukwala 835 31 3 2 114 985 117 202 2 1 12 334 Vihiga 1,411 91 1 8 215 1,726 66 15 1 0 17 99 Voi 1,710 63 2 7 411 2,193 77 8 10 0 25 120 Wajir 659 21 1 0 258 939 3 2 0 0 4 9 Wang'uru 920 36 8 6 270 1,240 206 169 18 2 74 469 Webuye 378 25 3 15 399 820 36 3 0 0 6 45 Winam 1,213 104 5 10 309 1,641 166 108 12 2 125 413 Wundanyi 1,164 64 0 5 179 1,412 40 44 6 0 28 118 All Stations 170,586 10,388 545 1,372 50,427 233,318 44,149 23,264 3,082 142 6,515 77,152 Appendix 11: Resolved Criminal and Civil cases in Magistrates’ Courts, FY 2020/21 Court Station CRIMINAL CASES CIVIL CASES Criminal Cases Sexual Offences Inquest Children Criminal Traffic All Civi l Cases Probate & Admin Divorce Separa- tion Workman Compensa- tion Children Civil All Baricho 928 24 1 0 159 1,112 131 172 2 0 0 305 Bomet 1,866 79 5 2 209 2,161 122 34 3 0 70 229 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Bondo 1,474 82 1 0 197 1,754 190 327 13 15 41 586 Bungoma 1,520 89 5 5 145 1,764 328 75 13 9 8 433 Busia 2,698 113 6 1 513 3,331 427 256 8 0 6 697 Butali 357 9 0 1 77 444 87 43 2 84 5 221 Butere 637 61 2 9 44 753 101 350 9 120 39 619 Chuka 1,384 37 0 0 164 1,585 143 222 22 2 58 447 Dadaab 14 4 0 0 1 19 0 0 0 0 3 3 Eldama Ravine 1,329 40 0 2 249 1,620 38 76 3 0 9 126 Eldoret 3,778 144 17 1 1,237 5,177 1,321 280 79 0 56 1,736 Embu 1,655 31 0 0 255 1,941 211 247 18 0 77 553 Engineer 3,752 80 4 21 168 4,025 114 152 12 12 39 329 Garissa 1,350 44 0 0 664 2,058 37 0 0 0 21 58 Garsen 210 16 0 3 50 279 6 0 0 0 12 18 Gatundu 1,324 47 2 4 170 1,547 269 271 16 16 17 589 Gichugu 1,015 18 5 1 92 1,131 62 136 8 0 13 219 Githongo 1,006 35 0 22 35 1,098 39 91 1 0 26 157 Githunguri 689 27 1 0 144 861 111 357 7 2 11 488 Hamisi 815 22 0 3 28 868 13 24 1 0 4 42 Hola 659 31 0 5 33 728 39 3 2 0 8 52 Homa Bay 1,152 75 15 0 519 1,761 281 366 19 0 11 677 Isiolo 613 12 3 2 101 731 98 7 7 0 21 133 Iten 901 38 0 0 135 1,074 67 20 1 1 27 116 JKIA 175 2 0 0 6 183 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kabarnet 877 24 1 3 73 978 22 17 5 1 11 56 Kahawa 29 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kajiado 613 23 0 1 465 1,102 172 76 13 0 20 281 Kakamega 1,525 77 1 0 449 2,052 255 215 10 0 18 498 Kakuma 171 20 0 0 35 226 0 0 0 0 1 1 Kaloleni 348 36 0 3 64 451 365 45 1 215 1 627 Kandara 1,710 90 1 12 394 2,207 293 280 5 101 26 705 Kangema 819 55 2 2 111 989 52 119 1 0 11 183 Kangundo 1,954 34 0 2 307 2,297 171 187 9 3 11 381 Kapenguria 874 29 4 16 124 1,047 38 14 1 0 5 58 Kapsabet 1,825 140 5 1 57 2,028 220 319 10 0 27 576 Karatina 634 32 8 4 235 913 103 190 9 2 22 326 Kehancha 1,417 80 0 58 325 1,880 127 51 9 0 3 190 Kericho 3,456 72 3 2 329 3,862 216 105 14 0 5 340 Keroka 1,315 29 0 1 434 1,779 117 17 5 0 27 166 Kerugoya 828 13 4 6 70 921 139 391 7 0 17 554 Kiambu 2,298 27 1 20 502 2,848 435 290 48 14 49 836 Kibera 1,669 81 3 0 3,352 5,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kigumo 982 59 2 12 100 1,155 106 141 0 0 41 288 Kikuyu 572 4 0 0 287 863 190 219 23 0 21 453 Kilgoris 516 30 0 8 36 590 95 15 3 0 1 114 Kilifi 674 43 6 0 253 976 363 84 11 4 5 467 Kilungu 826 62 6 3 863 1,760 203 20 5 1 14 243 Kimilili 803 98 6 9 98 1,014 89 56 7 2 17 171 Kisii 2,261 65 5 0 240 2,571 792 278 43 3 31 1,147 Kisumu 977 22 2 11 308 1,320 590 405 40 0 43 1,078 Kitale 3,593 294 2 36 487 4,412 567 88 17 13 76 761 Kithimani 888 61 7 2 243 1,201 119 49 2 0 4 174 Kitui 1,197 99 4 1 425 1,726 526 204 31 0 39 800 Kwale 849 49 1 18 242 1,159 175 14 3 43 28 263 Kyuso 177 23 1 1 46 248 36 10 7 0 12 65 Lamu 484 26 2 5 56 573 19 0 0 0 8 27 Limuru 874 43 2 1 775 1,695 189 174 11 2 54 430 Lodwar 512 38 1 0 24 575 6 9 1 2 5 23 Loitoktok 263 24 0 13 30 330 50 37 4 1 12 104 Machakos 3,839 58 0 4 292 4,193 1,075 191 22 5 27 1,320 Makadara 4,370 187 19 14 1,664 6,254 0 0 0 0 0 0 Makindu 854 64 2 2 688 1,610 201 23 2 0 2 228 Makueni 322 69 1 0 62 454 97 92 6 0 3 198 Malindi 653 33 3 4 219 912 281 54 9 2 71 417 Mandera 491 21 0 0 146 658 37 0 0 0 9 46 Maralal 620 17 0 5 157 799 37 3 5 0 22 67 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6308 6308 Mariakani 504 38 3 4 328 877 221 1 1 67 19 309 Marimanti 929 51 1 17 74 1,072 35 18 4 0 17 74 Marsabit 619 37 0 3 85 744 56 1 5 0 26 88 Maseno 862 61 2 6 217 1,148 124 109 2 0 16 251 Maua 2,272 129 1 84 190 2,676 218 141 3 0 47 409 Mavoko 1,117 30 2 0 871 2,020 939 17 22 2 32 1,012 Mbita 983 44 0 0 120 1,147 74 68 16 0 7 165 Meru 2,033 54 2 36 649 2,774 411 225 64 0 63 763 Migori 1,130 82 0 2 115 1,329 547 95 26 0 6 674 Mil. Anticor- ruption 21 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Childrens 14 1 0 15 0 30 152 0 0 0 1,512 1,664 Mil. Commer- cial 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,146 4 663 282 40 5,135 Milimani CM 6,534 23 15 0 5,612 12,184 0 0 0 0 0 0 Molo 2,176 80 0 7 764 3,027 343 55 14 0 45 457 Mombasa 2,787 108 9 0 1,790 4,694 1,552 99 85 74 0 1,810 Moyale 516 27 3 1 135 682 28 0 0 0 37 65 Mpeketoni 734 27 0 10 56 827 19 12 1 1 15 48 Msambweni 462 40 0 2 102 606 94 3 2 0 49 148 Mukurwe-ini 1,012 23 3 0 93 1,131 24 106 1 0 7 138 Mumias 881 48 3 9 137 1,078 126 216 2 15 11 370 Murang'a 1,331 25 3 2 307 1,668 272 588 12 0 4 876 Mutomo 538 17 3 1 83 642 134 2 5 0 11 152 Mwingi 718 36 0 0 111 865 159 90 17 0 6 272 Nairobi City 302 0 1 0 13 316 595 0 0 0 1 596 Naivasha 1,374 40 6 14 925 2,359 600 201 8 446 30 1,285 Nakuru 2,827 85 16 18 1,705 4,651 619 280 32 0 41 972 Nanyuki 1,681 47 5 2 225 1,960 82 91 19 1 52 245 Narok 768 21 0 7 431 1,227 174 29 3 7 118 331 Ndhiwa 247 15 0 0 83 345 40 79 3 2 4 128 Ngong' 712 31 2 0 452 1,197 130 56 25 1 104 316 Nkubu 790 54 3 6 312 1,165 150 150 5 1 25 331 Nyahururu 951 54 1 4 223 1,233 84 116 4 0 26 230 Nyamira 1,456 89 18 1 299 1,863 535 48 13 0 44 640 Nyando 1,279 58 1 6 296 1,640 408 384 11 20 30 853 Nyeri 3,506 55 11 64 406 4,042 561 434 28 0 54 1,077 Ogembo 1,624 88 0 7 130 1,849 309 17 3 0 13 342 Othaya 1,042 14 3 1 68 1,128 29 109 2 1 5 146 Oyugis 734 34 0 2 186 956 100 181 4 0 4 289 Rongo 592 24 3 2 52 673 198 80 15 0 14 307 Ruiru 1,336 14 5 0 565 1,920 611 29 83 7 65 795 Runyenjes 477 21 0 11 160 669 105 223 3 1 17 349 Shanzu 1,773 52 1 2 902 2,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 Siakago 897 66 3 3 130 1,099 190 241 9 1 14 455 Siaya 1,019 36 0 3 110 1,168 99 113 4 0 9 225 Sirisia 499 24 0 9 29 561 11 7 1 0 4 23 Sotik 1,568 38 0 4 161 1,771 92 21 6 0 21 140 Tamu 449 53 4 26 70 602 114 47 4 32 11 208 Taveta 538 36 0 20 28 622 32 2 1 0 27 62 Tawa 398 18 0 0 47 463 98 11 1 0 2 112 Thika 2,813 126 7 1 1,016 3,963 981 240 61 0 120 1,402 Tigania 1,718 67 2 3 197 1,987 102 73 7 0 28 210 Tononoka 25 25 0 22 0 72 558 0 0 0 318 876 Ukwala 534 22 0 0 65 621 44 35 1 0 13 93 Vihiga 1,126 33 2 8 182 1,351 118 103 10 0 9 240 Voi 1,180 28 6 0 337 1,551 282 21 19 13 8 343 Wajir 613 21 2 0 239 875 10 2 0 0 18 30 Wang'uru 710 10 0 0 223 943 35 62 3 0 23 123 Webuye 529 21 4 3 400 957 87 23 6 2 21 139 Winam 1,186 75 0 5 294 1,560 211 66 8 16 113 414 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Wundanyi 1,130 56 1 3 174 1,364 36 42 5 2 23 108 All Stations 149,836 6,043 329 818 43,436 200,462 30,907 13,457 1,997 1,669 4,780 52,810 Appendix 12: Pending Criminal and Civil cases in Magistrates’ Courts, 30 th June 2021 Court Station Criminal Cases Sexual Offenc- es Inquest Children Crimi- nal Traf- fic All Criminal Cases Civil Cas- es Probate And Admin Divorce Separa- tion Workman Compensa- tion Chil- dren Civi l All Civil Cases Baricho 1,061 201 7 38 509 1,816 1,015 33 2 3 73 1,126 Bomet 1,049 188 3 3 73 1,316 312 172 8 4 75 571 Bondo 562 125 1 1 43 732 166 411 2 0 11 590 Bungoma 846 243 31 18 30 1,168 1,161 685 17 25 37 1,925 Busia 4,935 660 85 105 670 6,455 522 1,670 9 21 56 2,278 Butali 1,311 205 14 9 72 1,611 470 386 3 233 77 1,169 Butere 644 150 4 66 30 894 575 400 1 112 56 1,144 Chuka 572 224 10 28 418 1,252 837 101 30 2 25 995 Dadaab 63 13 1 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eldama Ra- vine 785 108 3 36 231 1,163 72 144 5 17 41 279 Eldoret 7,053 1,425 57 72 1,690 10,297 3,895 700 64 61 310 5,030 Embu 1,576 215 12 53 369 2,225 320 1 28 6 175 530 Engineer 518 77 3 12 79 689 71 142 5 6 5 229 Garissa 959 152 6 19 230 1,366 184 0 2 1 205 392 Garsen 411 79 3 16 52 561 154 4 3 0 4 165 Gatundu 860 93 1 20 99 1,073 848 441 17 64 20 1,390 Gichugu 595 46 8 19 81 749 355 104 2 2 22 485 Githongo 354 156 2 11 92 615 109 49 13 2 27 200 Githunguri 591 161 8 11 31 802 336 160 7 18 44 565 Hamisi 956 132 10 5 39 1,142 37 105 2 1 23 168 Hola 299 61 4 22 22 408 8 4 4 2 13 31 Homa Bay 1,138 177 20 14 350 1,699 343 405 4 2 157 911 Isiolo 1,449 109 7 11 118 1,694 152 6 3 4 3 168 Iten 369 19 7 14 24 433 82 75 8 1 4 170 JKIA 131 2 1 0 6 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kabarnet 388 88 1 15 44 536 37 30 3 1 12 83 Kahawa 18 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kajiado 1,992 164 19 78 407 2,660 1,937 126 25 629 17 2,734 Kakamega 1,868 466 10 110 204 2,658 2,257 3,194 63 1 118 5,633 Kakuma 400 30 3 2 32 467 43 15 0 0 6 64 Kaloleni 163 33 1 15 39 251 277 71 2 190 0 540 Kandara 1,302 241 3 47 190 1,783 426 581 6 82 4 1,099 Kangema 459 88 3 3 46 599 47 244 7 1 28 327 Kangundo 1,512 221 12 19 75 1,839 269 198 23 1 26 517 Kapenguria 1,863 193 17 95 74 2,242 178 1 1 5 52 237 Kapsabet 2,929 950 28 61 51 4,019 964 298 36 161 31 1,490 Karatina 948 109 16 16 156 1,245 823 420 6 117 21 1,387 Kehancha 379 117 1 7 32 536 173 119 2 1 7 302 Kericho 2,704 413 22 106 402 3,647 1,003 376 64 19 31 1,493 Keroka 781 179 17 26 161 1,164 341 144 8 6 26 525 Kerugoya 1,029 72 21 4 158 1,284 1,245 525 22 2 20 1,814 Kiambu 1,126 209 4 26 9 1,374 1,178 456 22 6 11 1,673 Kibera 6,789 632 31 29 6,330 13,811 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kigumo 2,839 376 69 12 645 3,941 552 227 6 5 10 800 Kikuyu 2,412 263 20 89 506 3,290 1,960 569 80 126 237 2,972 Kilgoris 465 85 2 20 4 576 27 20 1 4 115 167 Kilifi 1,424 575 27 47 192 2,265 617 339 32 2 65 1,055 Kilungu 610 173 3 46 120 952 457 186 3 11 62 719 Kimilili 1,490 173 5 32 26 1,726 379 380 23 3 53 838 Kisii 3,162 416 19 301 69 3,967 3,236 1,186 88 27 158 4,695 Kisumu 3,832 165 16 114 3,021 7,148 3,809 912 77 136 489 5,423 Kitale 6,375 900 35 110 457 7,877 192 164 99 40 496 991 Kithimani 1,770 242 7 35 121 2,175 179 83 2 3 57 324 Kitui 1,122 167 11 1 115 1,416 1,362 1,160 62 1 47 2,632 Kwale 1,035 446 1 91 227 1,800 1,808 314 24 36 105 2,287 Kyuso 74 7 2 8 14 105 30 21 1 0 4 56 Lamu 106 24 0 1 6 137 52 4 0 0 29 85 Limuru 734 100 19 29 192 1,074 1,608 704 56 175 157 2,700 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6310 6310 Lodwar 959 282 9 45 59 1,354 9 5 1 1 120 136 Loitoktok 50 26 5 37 19 137 50 46 0 1 52 149 Machakos 2,229 422 9 141 454 3,255 2,216 750 67 122 67 3,222 Makadara 10,627 987 1 112 1,889 13,616 0 0 0 0 0 0 Makindu 986 142 6 5 80 1,219 1,473 213 25 111 40 1,862 Makueni 351 84 19 13 36 503 318 292 17 4 33 664 Malindi 2,503 494 56 46 574 3,673 388 320 9 12 112 841 Mandera 175 93 3 3 16 290 27 2 1 0 7 37 Maralal 222 15 2 18 52 309 29 12 0 0 28 69 Mariakani 937 234 1 18 317 1,507 934 89 8 12 49 1,092 Marimanti 737 99 0 42 60 938 37 40 4 1 94 176 Marsabit 630 82 1 4 67 784 3 22 1 0 5 31 Maseno 951 239 11 16 129 1,346 355 165 3 33 13 569 Maua 3,046 350 6 144 366 3,912 62 115 29 10 143 359 Mavoko 1,512 154 56 28 551 2,301 2,443 240 28 1,845 15 4,571 Mbita 727 117 13 4 96 957 56 39 6 1 3 105 Meru 1,363 90 23 114 212 1,802 2,481 369 49 578 804 4,281 Migori 1,042 236 13 20 88 1,399 1,739 471 45 2 38 2,295 Mil. Anticor- ruption 179 0 0 34 0 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mil. Childrens 480 33 0 800 0 1,313 451 0 2 41 7,230 7,724 Mil. Commer- cial 0 0 0 0 0 0 43,716 84 6,201 4,720 22 54,743 Milimani CM 4,091 69 55 0 1,322 5,537 0 0 0 0 0 0 Molo 2,610 497 60 47 793 4,007 795 235 0 3 83 1,116 Mombasa 11,245 663 98 31 8,554 20,591 22,665 676 299 5,150 2 28,792 Moyale 49 17 2 0 2 70 20 3 0 0 4 27 Mpeketoni 159 60 0 1 8 228 43 40 2 1 8 94 Msambweni 173 201 0 26 2 402 317 27 3 2 22 371 Mukurwe-ini 118 42 3 10 23 196 173 617 3 0 2 795 Mumias 922 137 1 99 83 1,242 75 425 8 0 28 536 Murang'a 2,379 114 37 54 409 2,993 3,155 1,583 19 4 128 4,889 Mutomo 519 78 3 6 28 634 73 81 5 6 1 166 Mwingi 1,002 242 8 5 163 1,420 327 176 0 2 9 514 Nairobi City 219 13 5 23 38 298 192 2 0 0 2 196 Naivasha 2,485 394 30 299 1,549 4,757 1,778 407 67 917 122 3,291 Nakuru 9,593 972 85 378 3,683 14,711 16,485 1,243 337 1,513 1,683 21,261 Nanyuki 1,659 263 24 73 125 2,144 1,562 118 38 16 46 1,780 Narok 947 411 36 42 104 1,540 1,554 303 39 82 93 2,071 Ndhiwa 562 183 7 4 53 809 314 267 25 13 9 628 Ngong 2,231 366 9 108 254 2,968 415 69 16 0 35 535 Nkubu 412 74 6 27 99 618 180 83 20 8 69 360 Nyahururu 2,458 384 61 513 370 3,786 2,084 48 37 46 261 2,476 Nyamira 1,068 206 31 7 115 1,427 498 178 19 11 14 720 Nyando 1,450 343 6 96 535 2,430 1,929 344 16 304 44 2,637 Nyeri 801 191 17 168 146 1,323 1,466 918 82 13 211 2,690 Ogembo 2,266 411 4 8 98 2,787 1,364 278 51 5 116 1,814 Othaya 456 17 1 35 27 536 57 9 2 1 4 73 Oyugis 1,244 154 11 14 201 1,624 278 553 22 5 10 868 Rongo 271 97 5 1 22 396 811 125 1 3 3 943 Ruiru 715 119 1 1 284 1,120 49 74 25 2 37 187 Runyenjes 684 70 1 5 117 877 51 68 5 0 5 129 Shanzu 2,477 584 12 60 653 3,786 0 0 0 0 0 0 Siakago 390 69 19 1 26 505 514 453 14 124 30 1,135 Siaya 1,001 123 5 2 45 1,176 812 863 3 34 14 1,726 Sirisia 909 182 7 15 22 1,135 160 64 4 4 17 249 Sotik 460 153 8 4 70 695 298 137 4 10 168 617 Tamu 224 54 1 22 9 310 37 46 1 22 6 112 Taveta 465 70 12 39 21 607 88 6 6 0 19 119 Tawa 496 172 6 4 97 775 83 17 4 0 5 109 Thika 2,659 158 16 2 1,059 3,894 5,345 874 19 118 86 6,442 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Tigania 1,369 70 5 54 92 1,590 385 100 0 0 50 535 Tononoka 33 17 0 174 0 224 370 0 0 0 366 736 Ukwala 785 93 5 16 60 959 127 168 2 1 55 353 Vihiga 1,436 241 5 32 336 2,050 953 142 3 15 113 1,226 Voi 1,224 121 9 22 91 1,467 621 8 1 9 63 702 Wajir 656 56 3 12 86 813 43 3 0 1 11 58 Wang'uru 1,052 167 11 123 158 1,511 523 261 23 8 222 1,037 Webuye 1,118 124 46 44 210 1,542 452 17 1 27 15 512 Winam 1,841 307 17 260 66 2,491 247 137 5 9 72 470 Wundanyi 219 67 3 27 41 357 44 5 3 1 60 113 All Stations 184,495 27,133 1,784 6,836 46,897 267,145 166,08 34,790 8,813 18,36 17,255 245,309 Appendix 13: Case Backlog in Magistrates’ Courts by age, 30 th June 2021 Court Station 1-3 years 3-5 years Over 5 years All backlog Baricho 1,316 73 4 1,393 Bomet 608 10 6 624 Bondo 442 17 5 464 Bungoma 1,035 47 275 1,357 Busia 1,763 1,243 62 3,068 Butali 921 526 1 1,448 Butere 629 150 35 814 Chuka 1,013 81 8 1,102 Dadaab 33 4 0 37 Eldama Ravine 469 17 0 486 Eldoret 4,813 375 1,467 6,655 Embu 634 47 329 1,010 Engineer 167 134 11 312 Garissa 1,092 15 10 1,117 Garsen 359 24 2 385 Gatundu 133 168 14 315 Gichugu 520 15 12 547 Githongo 305 5 25 335 Githunguri 356 10 48 414 Hamisi 681 90 5 776 Hola 153 21 3 177 Homa Bay 332 263 10 605 Isiolo 703 22 2 727 Iten 136 126 14 276 JKIA 51 7 2 60 Kabarnet 137 17 3 157 Kahawa 0 0 0 0 Kajiado 1,710 1,202 291 3,203 Kakamega 2,017 1,766 829 4,612 Kakuma 237 11 0 248 Kaloleni 67 3 4 74 Kandara 603 50 15 668 Kangema 45 14 9 68 Kangundo 432 31 2 465 Kapenguria 1,188 33 1 1,222 Kapsabet 1,362 1,073 227 2,662 Karatina 624 304 198 1,126 Kehancha 345 27 1 373 Kericho 2,672 107 194 2,973 Keroka 40 5 12 57 Kerugoya 934 201 9 1,144 Kiambu 489 114 41 644 Kibera 8,531 16 102 8,649 Kigumo 1,279 1,101 10 2,390 Kikuyu 2,233 1,630 49 3,912 Kilgoris 22 51 11 84 Kilifi 635 111 49 795 Kilungu 427 54 2 483 Kimilili 720 422 45 1,187 Kisii 1,829 1,459 161 3,449 Kisumu 4,760 3,732 79 8,571 Kitale 2,127 395 34 2,556 Kithimani 645 8 141 794 Kitui 1,139 294 486 1,919 Kwale 1,419 1,120 177 2,716 Kyuso 58 24 5 87 Lamu 64 8 1 73 Limuru 1,008 285 32 1,325 Lodwar 500 159 8 667 Loitoktok 116 10 0 126 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6312 6312 Machakos 875 8 79 962 Makadara 4,034 285 124 4,443 Makindu 629 192 46 867 Makueni 204 134 2 340 Malindi 1,178 988 141 2,307 Mandera 40 2 2 44 Maralal 70 0 1 71 Mariakani 484 128 7 619 Marimanti 338 8 7 353 Marsabit 267 2 5 274 Maseno 676 31 22 729 Maua 1,759 135 74 1,968 Mavoko 2,245 79 153 2,477 Mbita 481 57 1 539 Meru 1,101 1,786 105 2,992 Migori 1,615 347 121 2,083 Mil. Anticorruption 101 45 2 148 Mil. Childrens 4,005 2,707 408 7,120 Mil. Commercial 20,859 17,083 5,478 43,420 Milimani CM 1,925 883 287 3,095 Molo 1,376 436 490 2,302 Mombasa 21,646 14,055 5,891 41,592 Moyale 2 1 0 3 Mpeketoni 41 16 0 57 Msambweni 161 0 3 164 Mukurwe-ini 140 16 1 157 Mumias 203 251 13 467 Murang'a 2,492 2,099 131 4,722 Mutomo 243 13 63 319 Mwingi 329 315 114 758 Nairobi City 303 9 179 491 Naivasha 2,538 1,076 152 3,766 Nakuru 14,004 10,740 1,810 26,554 Nanyuki 2,385 160 1 2,546 Narok 1,020 277 187 1,484 Ndhiwa 446 168 1 615 Ngong' 571 279 7 857 Nkubu 183 27 12 222 Nyahururu 2,312 1,420 158 3,890 Nyamira 379 59 38 476 Nyando 1,565 1,177 88 2,830 Nyeri 542 160 3 705 Ogembo 1,100 418 130 1,648 Othaya 168 11 5 184 Oyugis 219 242 3 464 Rongo 314 38 8 360 Ruiru 75 0 0 75 Runyenjes 154 15 8 177 Shanzu 1,180 430 21 1,631 Siakago 486 122 46 654 Siaya 327 84 278 689 Sirisia 320 266 0 586 Sotik 247 66 6 319 Tamu 218 8 0 226 Taveta 198 29 16 243 Tawa 306 46 1 353 Thika 2,887 2,303 206 5,396 Tigania 663 245 127 1,035 Tononoka 267 102 8 377 Ukwala 86 2 8 96 Vihiga 859 609 84 1,552 Voi 743 60 9 812 Wajir 359 2 3 364 Wang'uru 525 264 51 840 Webuye 795 391 7 1,193 Winam 943 202 23 1,168 Wundanyi 293 31 7 331 All Stations 168,577 82,967 23,040 274,584 Appendix 14: SJT Implementation Status on Case Backlog Reduction in Magistrates’ Courts, 30 th June 2021 Court Station SJT target on reduction of case backlog older than 5 years, 1st Jan 2017 Case backlog older than 5 years, 30th June 2021 Resolved cases older than 5 years between 1st Jan 2017 and June 2021 % change in case backlog older than 5 years (1st Jan 2017 and 30th June 2021) Baricho 24 4 145 -83% Bomet 52 6 143 -88% Bondo 10 5 70 -50% Bungoma 709 275 3,974 -61% 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Busia 152 62 1,072 -59% Butali 83 1 135 -99% Butere 17 35 195 106% Chuka 499 8 349 -98% Dadaab N/A 0 0 N/A Eldama Ravine 101 0 163 -100% Eldoret 848 1,467 1,517 73% Embu 776 329 1,805 -58% Engineer 6 11 138 83% Garissa 34 10 481 -71% Garsen 1 2 6 100% Gatundu 174 14 685 -92% Gichugu 16 12 146 -25% Githongo 4 25 54 525% Githunguri 215 48 401 -78% Hamisi 21 5 53 -76% Hola 12 3 50 -75% Homa Bay 27 10 85 -63% Isiolo 41 2 100 -95% Iten 903 14 3,133 -98% JKIA 0 2 8 200% Kabarnet 37 3 88 -92% Kahawa 0 - 0% Kajiado 1,007 291 947 -71% Kakamega 351 829 521 136% Kakuma 0 0 4 0% Kaloleni 57 4 315 -93% Kandara 153 15 69 -90% Kangema 48 9 122 -81% Kangundo 40 2 142 -95% Kapenguria 20 1 133 -95% Kapsabet 442 227 387 -49% Karatina 323 198 180 -39% Kehancha 52 1 115 -98% Kericho 745 194 1,446 -74% Keroka 114 12 361 -89% Kerugoya 67 9 519 -87% Kiambu 1,074 41 1,865 -96% Kibera 320 102 835 -68% Kigumo 205 10 669 -95% Kikuyu 315 49 457 -84% Kilgoris 36 11 258 -69% Kilifi 729 49 1,867 -93% Kilungu 2 2 48 0% Kimilili 169 45 236 -73% Kisii 351 161 2,029 -54% Kisumu 347 79 750 -77% Kitale 664 34 1,635 -95% Kithimani 33 141 267 327% Kitui 2,360 486 952 -79% Kwale 345 177 361 -49% Kyuso 33 5 41 -85% Lamu 9 1 45 -89% Limuru 61 32 858 -48% Lodwar 17 8 16 -53% Loitoktok 0 0 6 0% Machakos 2,659 79 3,600 -97% Makadara 1,061 124 1,811 -88% Makindu 637 46 930 -93% Makueni 157 2 261 -99% Malindi 418 141 3,488 -66% Mandera 5 2 4 -60% Maralal 6 1 15 -83% Mariakani 34 7 146 -79% Marimanti 7 7 30 0% Marsabit 2 5 11 150% 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6314 6314 Maseno 322 22 945 -93% Maua 871 74 1,409 -92% Mavoko 22 153 197 595% Mbita 7 1 201 -86% Meru 4,023 105 4,659 -97% Migori 39 121 929 210% Mil. Anticorruption 34 2 125 -94% Mil. Childrens 5,702 408 4,515 -93% Mil. Commercial 19,836 5,478 16,915 -72% Milimani CM 389 287 1,459 -26% Molo 738 490 892 -34% Mombasa 21,855 5,891 17,559 -73% Moyale 9 0 32 -100% Mpeketoni 1 0 1 -100% Msambweni 0 3 3 300% Mukurwe-ini 8 1 28 -88% Mumias 261 13 826 -95% Murang'a 849 131 1,811 -85% Mutomo 41 63 149 54% Mwingi 434 114 573 -74% Nairobi City 314 179 641 -43% Naivasha 1,638 152 1,760 -91% Nakuru 17,950 1,810 5,930 -90% Nanyuki 311 1 554 -100% Narok 473 187 389 -60% Ndhiwa 10 1 13 -90% Ngong' 74 7 9 -91% Nkubu 244 12 251 -95% Nyahururu 1,400 158 600 -89% Nyamira 145 38 787 -74% Nyando 1,187 88 513 -93% Nyeri 452 3 2,156 -99% Ogembo 501 130 761 -74% Othaya 4 5 56 25% Oyugis 60 3 224 -95% Rongo 41 8 125 -80% Ruiru 0 0 2 0% Runyenjes 9 8 144 -11% Shanzu 20 21 732 5% Siakago 491 46 1,021 -91% Siaya 116 278 1,231 140% Sirisia 7 0 1,068 -100% Sotik 192 6 617 -97% Tamu 12 0 25 -100% Taveta 17 16 86 -6% Tawa 10 1 36 -90% Thika 3,022 206 2,916 -93% Tigania 484 127 473 -74% Tononoka 89 8 2,673 -91% Ukwala 10 8 80 -20% Vihiga 369 84 897 -77% Voi 177 9 227 -95% Wajir 2 3 97 50% Wang'uru 53 51 190 -4% Webuye 237 7 281 -97% Winam 326 23 963 -93% Wundanyi 9 7 31 -22% All Stations 106,134 23,040 125,535 -78% Appendix 15: Average Time to Disposition in Magistrates’ Courts, FY 2020/21 Court Station Average Time to Disposition (Days) Overall Criminal Civil Traffic Baricho 241 118 814 98 Bomet 192 135 504 63 Bondo 208 85 512 13 Bungoma 398 93 736 25 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Busia 265 136 951 34 Butali 372 208 679 81 Butere 557 180 884 43 Chuka 306 269 394 88 Dadaab 195 197 2 0 Eldama Ravine 118 80 484 56 Eldoret 254 219 396 44 Embu 346 165 840 140 Engineer 128 82 530 60 Garissa 141 199 136 25 Garsen 161 170 353 39 Gatundu 264 89 666 56 Gichugu 239 136 687 87 Githongo 179 171 198 64 Githunguri 508 167 1,028 76 Hamisi 90 73 320 13 Hola 184 139 358 109 Homa Bay 264 109 681 8 Isiolo 294 197 606 63 Iten 122 88 285 48 JKIA 261 333 6 51 Kabarnet 129 71 934 18 Kahawa 10 3 0 Kajiado 288 225 607 48 Kakamega 364 263 806 72 Kakuma 139 164 53 54 Kaloleni 441 184 647 8 Kandara 296 187 637 87 Kangema 235 138 663 45 Kangundo 129 76 442 11 Kapenguria 129 117 253 35 Kapsabet 487 299 990 160 Karatina 386 195 760 308 Kehancha 85 71 307 32 Kericho 169 134 529 65 Keroka 159 117 621 20 Kerugoya 529 173 1,001 164 Kiambu 340 259 519 145 Kibera 250 444 0 152 Kigumo 268 178 580 283 Kikuyu 265 149 511 50 Kilgoris 315 155 834 106 Kilifi 368 240 672 120 Kilungu 92 64 460 6 Kimilili 323 252 630 206 Kisii 444 195 885 97 Kisumu 352 208 486 55 Kitale 275 161 816 103 Kithimani 270 206 843 66 Kitui 658 477 1,135 51 Kwale 324 378 473 78 Kyuso 335 280 606 20 Lamu 121 111 294 54 Limuru 342 268 777 136 Lodwar 237 229 523 32 Loitoktok 218 152 420 31 Machakos 257 87 813 78 Makadara 311 506 49 138 Makindu 317 358 915 46 Makueni 323 161 643 112 Malindi 378 335 559 71 Mandera 77 86 147 6 Maralal 84 73 270 5 Mariakani 416 355 748 105 Marimanti 117 96 461 68 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6316 6316 Marsabit 166 133 343 72 Maseno 266 188 637 30 Maua 444 380 743 123 Mavoko 174 102 447 24 Mbita 170 90 418 31 Meru 331 157 785 59 Migori 474 105 965 27 Mil. Anticorruption 1,238 1,267 0 - Mil. Childrens 578 321 582 - Mil. Commercial 945 - 945 - Milimani CM 116 405 55 94 Molo 239 95 606 28 Mombasa 398 276 896 70 Moyale 97 89 216 5 Mpeketoni 75 50 261 16 Msambweni 117 119 172 22 Mukurwe-ini 137 81 475 78 Mumias 1,164 197 5,874 42 Murang'a 541 191 1,115 189 Mutomo 613 131 1,419 216 Mwingi 407 218 849 117 Nairobi City 367 978 238 1,245 Naivasha 456 144 1,071 66 Nakuru 210 155 604 22 Nanyuki 229 156 560 53 Narok 253 163 639 76 Ndhiwa 260 211 524 4 Ngong' 210 186 376 177 Nkubu 288 231 489 16 Nyahururu 262 223 664 57 Nyamira 390 232 786 83 Nyando 410 194 767 169 Nyeri 313 117 749 77 Ogembo 279 145 717 9 Othaya 146 70 508 81 Oyugis 197 92 558 30 Rongo 290 117 573 20 Ruiru 174 94 285 52 Runyenjes 364 165 740 88 Shanzu 143 302 0 57 Siakago 507 301 702 741 Siaya 192 112 465 42 Sirisia 94 90 152 66 Sotik 113 62 625 46 Tamu 269 115 637 36 Taveta 222 122 556 74 Tawa 226 170 488 39 Thika 541 374 1,008 179 Tigania 237 218 479 71 Tononoka 403 330 434 - Ukwala 121 49 415 30 Vihiga 272 148 931 91 Voi 306 207 773 117 Wajir 55 65 127 6 Wang'uru 142 105 438 26 Webuye 353 416 990 102 Winam 286 232 593 46 Wundanyi 74 51 356 7 All Stations 289 194 608 84 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Appendix 16: Average Time to Disposition in Kadhis’ Courts, FY 2020/21 Kadhis’ Courts Station Average Time to Disposition (Days) Balambala 1 Bungoma 1 Bura/Fafi 1 Busia 9 Bute 3 Dadaab 320 Eldas 1 Eldoret 1 Elwak 26 Garbatulla 52 Garissa 683 Garsen 31 Habaswein 111 Hola 83 Homa Bay 6 Ijara 1 Isiolo 1 Kajiado 1 Kakamega 9 Kakuma 2 Kericho 3 Kibera 220 Kilifi 11 Kisumu 9 Kitui 9 Kwale 20 Lamu 119 Machakos 1 Malindi 213 Mandera 69 Mariakani 1 Marsabit 157 Maua Merti 18 Modogashe 78 Mombasa 15 Moyale 41 Msambweni 21 Nairobi 8 Nakuru 1 Nyeri 179 Takaba 1 Thika 67 Vihiga Voi 19 Wajir 23 Witu 36 All Stations 59 LIST OF JUDGES, REGISTRARS, MAGISTRATES AND KADHIS AS AT 30 th JUNE, 2021 NAME STATION/TITLE SUPREME COURT JUDGES Hon. Lady Justice Martha K. Koome Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court Hon. Lady Justice Philomena Mwilu Deputy Chief Justice and Vice President Hon. Justice Mohamed K. Ibrahim Judge of the Supreme Court Hon. Justice (Dr.) Smokin Wanjala Judge of the Supreme Court Hon. Lady Justice Njoki Ndungu Judge of the Supreme Court Hon. Justice Isaac Lenaola Judge of the Supreme Court Hon. Justice William Ouko Judge of the Supreme Court COURT OF APPEAL JUDGES Hon. Justice Daniel K. Musinga President, Court of Appeal Hon. Lady Justice Roselyn Nambuye Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Wanjiru Karanja Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Hannah Okwengu Nairobi Hon. Justice Mohamed Warsame Nairobi Hon. Justice Asike Makhandia Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Agnes K. Murgor Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Fatuma Sichale Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Jamila Mohammed Nairobi Hon. Justice Sankale Ole Kantai Nairobi Hon. Justice Msagha Mbogholi Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Hellen Omondi Nairobi 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6318 6318 Hon. Justice Imanata Laibuta Nairobi Hon. Justice Kathurima M’inoti Judiciary Training Institute Hon. Justice Patrick Kiage Kisumu Hon. Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi Kisumu Hon. Justice Francis Tuiyott Kisumu Hon. Justice Gatembu Kairu Mombasa Hon. Lady Justice Jessie Lesiit Mombasa Hon. Lady Justice Pauline Nyamweya Mombasa HIGH COURT JUDGES Hon. Justice Hatari Peter George Waweru Nanyuki Hon. Justice Joseph Sergon Civil Division Hon. Lady Justice Roselyne P.V. Wendoh Migori Hon. Justice George Matatia Abaleka Dulu Makueni Hon. Lady Justice Mary Kasango Kiambu Hon. Justice Fredrick Andago Ochieng Kisumu Hon. Justice Luka Kiprotich Kimaru Kitale Hon. Justice Joseph R. Karanja Busia Hon. Justice Aggrey O. Muchelule Family Division Hon. Lady Justice Florence N. Muchemi Nyeri Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Akinyi Odero Family Division Hon. Lady Justice Abida. Ali-Aroni Garissa Hon. Justice Said Juma Chitembwe Civil Division Hon. Justice Joel Mwaura Ngugi Nakuru Hon. Justice Edward Muthoga Muriithi Meru Hon. Justice Kanyi Kimondo Murang’a Hon. Justice David Amilcar S. Majanja Commercial Division Hon. Lady Justice Cecilia Wathaiya Githua Criminal Division Hon. Lady Justice Beatrice Nthiori Thuranira Civil Division Hon. Justice Weldon K. Korir Kapenguria/Kabarnet Lady. Justice Grace Nzioka Criminal Division Hon. Lady Justice Christine W. Meoli Civil Division Hon. Lady Justice Hedwig Imbosa Ong’udi Constitution & Human Rights Hon. Lady Justice Stella Ngali Mutuku Kajiado Hon. Justice James Wakiaga Murang’a Hon. Lady Justice Rose Edwina Atieno Ougo Kisii Hon. Justice Eric Kennedy O. Ogola Eldoret Hon. Justice George Vincent Odunga Machakos Hon. Justice Hilary Kiplagat Chemitei Nakuru Hon. Justice James Aaron Makau Constitution & Human Rights Hon. Lady Justice Roselyne Korir Bomet Hon. Justice Richard Mururu Mwongo Kerugoya Hon. Justice Alfred Mabeya Presiding Judge- Commercial Division Hon. Lady Justice Lydia Awino Achode Principal Judge Family Division Hon. Lady Justice Abigail Mshila Commercial Division Hon. Justice William Musya Kakamega Hon. Lady Justice Jacqueline N. Kamau Kisumu Hon. Justice Ngaah Jairus Judicial Review Hon. Justice Francis Muthuku Gikonyo Narok Hon. Justice Martin Muya Mati Hon. Lady Justice Esther Nyambura Maina Anti-corruption Hon. Lady Justice Lilian Nambwire Mutende Criminal Division Hon. Lady Justice Grace Wangui Ngenye Naivasha Hon. Justice Justus Momanyi Bwonwonga Criminal Division Hon. Lady Justice Roselyne M. Ekirapa Aburili Siaya Hon. Justice Enock Chacha Mwita Commercial Division Hon. Justice Robert Kipkoech Limo Kitui Hon. Justice Charles Kariuki Mutungi Nyahururu Hon. Justice Anthony Charo Murima Judicial Review Hon. Lady Justice Janet Nzilani Mulwa Civil Division Hon. Lady Justice Farah Amin Kakamega Hon. Lady Justice Margaret Muigai Machakos Hon. Justice Stephen Riechi Bungoma Hon. Justice Olga Sewe Mombasa Hon. Lady Justice Wilfrida Osodo Commercial Division Hon. Justice Patrick Otieno Meru Hon. Justice Anthony Ndung’u Judicial Review Hon. Lady Justice Mugure Thande Family Division Hon. Lady Justice Margaret Mwangi Mombasa Hon. Justice Stephen Githinji Malindi Hon. Lady Justice Dorah O. Chepkwony Criminal Hon. Lady Justice Asenath Ongeri Kericho Hon. Justice Kiarie Waweru Kiarie Homa Bay Hon. Lady Justice Lucy Njuguna Embu Hon. Justice John Mativo Mombasa Hon. Justice Reuben Nyakundi Eldoret Hon. Mr. Justice Onyiego John Nyabuto Mombasa 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Hon. Lady Justice Cherere Thripsisa Wanjiku Wamae Meru Hon. Mr. Justice Ogola Daniel Ogembo Criminal Division Hon. Lady Justice Gitari Lucy Waruguru Chuka Hon. Lady Justice Rachel C. B Ngetich Nakuru Hon. Mr. Justice Kemei David Kipyegomen Bungoma Hon. Lady Justice Anne Adwera Colleta Apondi Mombasa Hon. Lady Justice Matheka Teresia Mumbua Nakuru Hon. Mr. Justice Nyaga Jesse Njagi Marsabit Hon. Lady Justice Antonina Kossy Bor Nanyuki Hon. Lady Justice Onyango Jane Muyoti Kisii Hon. Lady Justice Ochieng Christine E. Atieno Machakos Hon. Mr. Justice Eboso Benard Mweresa Thika Hon. Lady Justice Odeny Millicent Akinyi Malindi Hon. Lady Justice Mbugua Lucy Milimani Hon. Lady Justice Matheka Nelly Awori Mombasa Hon. Mr. Justice Angima Yuvinalis Maronga Nyahururu Hon. Mr. Justice Yano Charles Kimutai Chuka Hon. Mr. Justice Kullow Mohamed Noor Migori Hon. Mr. Justice Olola James Otieno Nyeri Hon. Lady Justice Mary Clausina Oundo Kericho Hon. Mr. Justice Njoroge Francis Mwangi Nakuru Hon. Lady Justice Kemei Kimutai Grace Thika Hon. Lady Justice Komingoi Loice Chepkemoi Milimani Hon. Mr. Justice Ohungo Dalmas Omondi Kakamega Hon. Mr. Justice Cherono Enock Chirchir Kerugoya/Garissa Hon. Mr. Justice Ongondo George Martin Atunga Homa Bay Hon. Mr. Justice Mbogo Charles Gitonga Narok Hon. Lady Justice Anne Abongo Omollo Busia Hon. Justice Oscar A. Angote Milimani Hon. Justice John M. Mutungi Nakuru Hon. Justice Boaz Nathan Olao Bungoma Hon. Justice Antony Oteng’o Ombwayo Kisumu Hon. Justice Antony Kimani Kaniaru Embu Hon. Lady Justice Lucy Nyambura Gacheru Murang’a Hon. Justice Peter Muchoki Njoroge Isiolo Hon. Justice Stephen Murigi Kibunja Eldoret Hon. Justice Samson Odhiambo Okong’o Milimani Hon. Justice Munyao Sila Mombasa Hon. Lady Justice Mary Muthoni Gitumbi JTI Hon. Justice Elijah Ogoti Obaga Eldoret Hon. Lady Justice Lucy Waithaka Facing Tribunal Hon. Justice Mboya Oguttu Joseph Milimani Hon. Justice Naikuni Lucas Leperes Mombasa Hon. Justice Mwanyale Michalel Ngolo Kapsabet Hon. Lady Justice Addraya Edda Dena Kwale Hon. Lady Justice Kimani Lilian Gathoni Kitui Hon. Justice Kamau Joseph M. Cherere Nyamira Hon. Justice Wabwoto Karoph Edward Milimani Hon. Lady Justice Koross Anne Yatich Kipingor Siaya Hon. Justice Gicheru Maxwel Ndwiga Kajiado Hon. Lady Justice Mogeni Ann J. Akhalemesi Milimani Hon. Justice Ongarora Fred Nyagaka Bomet Hon. Justice Christopher Kyania Nzili Meru Hon. Justice David Mwangi Milimani Hon. Lady Justice Lynette Achieng Nakuru Hon. Justice Washe Emmanuel Mutwana Kilgoris Hon. Lady Justice Nakuri Annet Machakos Hon. Lady Justice Murigi Theresa Wairimu Makueni Hon. Lady Justice Asati Esther Vihiga Hon. Justice Mathews Nderi Nduma Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango Nairobi Hon. Justice Nzioki Makau Nairobi Hon. Justice D.K. Njagi Marete Nyeri Hon. Lady Justice Monica Mbaru Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Linnet Ndolo Nairobi Hon. Justice James Rika Nairobi Hon. Justice Onesmus Makau Kericho Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya Mombasa Hon. Justice Radido Stephen Okiyo Kisumu Hon. Lady Justice Hellen Seruya Wasilwa Nakuru Hon. Justice Abuodha Jorum. Eldoret Hon. Justice Jacob K. Gakeri Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Stella C. Rutto Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Justice Jemima W. Keli Bungoma Hon. Justice Ocharo Kebira Nairobi Hon. Lady Justice Agnes M.N. Kitiku Mombasa Hon. Justice Bernard O.M Matanga Malindi 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6320 6320 Hon. Lady Justice Christine N. Baari Kisumu Hon. Justice David N. Nderitu Nakuru Hon. Lady Justice Ann N. Mwaure Nairobi REGISTRARS, MAGISTRATES AND KADHIS OFFICE OF REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT Hon. Esther Nyaiyaki Registrar Hon. Daniel Ole Keiwua Chief Magistrate (DR) OFFICE OF REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL Hon. Moses K. Serem Registrar Hon. Lorraine Dinna Ogombe Principal Magistrate (DR – Nairobi) OFFICE OF REGISTRAR HIGH COURT Hon. Judith Omange Registrar Hon. Hannah Njeri Ndung’u Chief Magistrate Hon. Jane Kemunto Ocharo Principal Magistrate (DR) OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE Hon. Georgina Nasaak Opakasi Senior Resident Magistrate OFFICE OF REGISTRAR EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT Hon. Kennedy L. Kandet Registrar Hon. Daisy Chebet Mutai Senior Resident Magistrate (DR) Hon. Noelle Mutheu Kyany’a Resident Magistrate (DR) OFFICE OF REGISTRAR ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT Hon. Rose Nyanunga Makungu Ag. Registrar OFFICE OF REGISTRAR MAGISTRATES COURT Hon. Peter Mutua Mulwa Registrar Hon. Caroline Njeri Kabucho Senior Principal Deputy Registrar Hon. Caroline Cheptoo Kemei Principal Magistrate Hon. Muktar Billow Salat Principal Kadhi OFFICE OF REGISTRAR TRIBUNALS Hon. Anne Asuga Ag. Registrar OFFICE OF REGISTRAR SMALL CLAIMS COURT Hon. Stella Waigwe Kanyiri Ag. Registrar OFFICE OF REGISTRAR JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION Hon. Winfrida Mokaya Registrar Hon. Bernard O. Ochieng Senior Principal Magistrate (DR) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE Hon. Fredrick Momanyi Senior Principal Deputy Registrar Hon. Moses Wanyonyi Wanjala SRM & Registrar – MAC (judicial duties at Thika Court) OFFICE OF THE JUDICIARY OMBUDSMAN Hon. Herbert Inonda Mwendwa Senior Resident Magistrate OFFICE OF THE CHIEF REGISTRAR JUDICIARY Hon. Joseph Were Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Sharon Muteitsi Mwayuli Senior Resident Magistrate COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS CO-ORDINATOR Hon. Ocharo Momanyi Principal Magistrate JUDICIARY TRAINING INSTITUTE Hon. Alice Wambui Macharia (Dr.) Principal Magistrate Hon. Catherine Wanjugu Mburu Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Priscah Wamucii Nyotah Resident Magistrate MILIMANI LAW COURTS High Court Division Deputy Registrars Hon. Jacob ole Kipury Chief Magistrate - Criminal Appeals Hon. Rose A.A. Otieno Senior Principal Magistrate - Criminal Div. Hon. Elizabeth Chepkoech Tanui Senior Principal Magistrate – DR Automation Hon. Angela Njeri Thuku Senior Principal Magistrate - JR, Const. & HR Hon. Caroline J. Kendagor Principal Magistrate – DR Mediation Hon. Isabela Nekesa Barasa Principal Magistrate - ELC Hon. Sammy Aswani Opande Principal Magistrate - Comm. & Tax Div. Hon. Rosaline Adhiambo Aganyo Principal Magistrate - Criminal Div. Hon. Christine Asuna Okello Senior Resident Magistrate - JR, Const. & HR Hon. Linda Akosa Mumassabba Senior Resident Magistrate - Civil Div. Hon. Claire Nanjala Wanyama Senior Resident Magistrate - Comm. & Tax Div. Hon. Pauline Wangari Mbulika Senior Resident Magistrate - Family Div. Hon. Jane Wambui Kamau Senior Resident Magistrate - Criminal Div. Hon. Janette Wandia Nyamu Senior Resident Magistrate - Family Div. Hon. Lydia Wambui Mbacho Resident Magistrate - Civil Div. 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Hon. Diana Awino Orago Resident Magistrate - ELC Hon. Alice Mukami Wachira Resident Magistrate - Criminal Div. Hon. Maureen Munyiri Munyolo Resident Magistrate - Family Div. Hon. Stephany Wambui Githogori Resident Magistrate - Tax Div. Chief Magistrate’s Court Hon. Francis Andayi Chief Magistrate Hon. Martha W. Mutuku Chief Magistrate Hon. Kenneth Kipkurui Cheruiyot Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Bernard Ochoi Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. David Munyao Ndungi Principal Magistrate Hon. Zainab Abdul Rahaman Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Carolyne Muthoni Njagi Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Sinkiyian Nkini Tobiko Senior Resident Magistrate Anti-Corruption Court Hon. Douglas Nyambane Ogoti Chief Magistrate Hon. Lawrence N. Mugambi Chief Magistrate Hon. Elizabeth Nyarangi Juma Chief Magistrate Hon. Felix Kombo Chief Magistrate Hon. Thomas Nzyoki Thyaka Chief Magistrate Hon. Victor Wakumile Ndururu Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Eunice Kagure Nyutu Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Peter Oduor Ooko Senior Principal Magistrate Traffic Court Hon. Esther Kimilu Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Martha Anyona Nanzushi Principal Magistrate Children’s Court Hon. Gerhard Gitonga Muchege Principal Magistrate Hon. Mary Anjao Otindo Principal Magistrate Hon. Hellen Malikia Siika Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Robert Ondieki Mbogo Resident Magistrate Hon. Festus Terer Resident Magistrate Hon. Maureen Wanjiru Kibe Resident Magistrate CITY COUNTY COURT Hon. Roselyne Oganyo Chief Magistrate Hon. Mary Wanja Njagi Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. James Omburah Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Selina Nelima Muchungi Senior Resident Magistrate CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL Hon. Beatrice Muthoni Kimemia Chief Magistrate – Chairperson BUSINESS PREMISES RENT TRIBUNAL Hon. AbdulQadir Lorot Chief Magistrate – Chairman MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS Hon. Liza Lynne W. Gicheha Chief Magistrate Hon. Mildred Obura Chief Magistrate Hon. David Mburu Wanjohi Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Edgar Matsigulu Kangoni Principal Magistrate Hon. Agnes Ndunge Makau Principal Magistrate Hon. Betty Chepkemei Koech Principal Magistrate Hon. Esther Nasimiyu Wanjala Principal Magistrate Hon. David Mbeja Obonyo Principal Magistrate Hon. Peter Omuyele Mukholi Principal Magistrate Hon. Dennis Mungai Kivuti Principal Magistrate Hon. Lilian Tsuma Lewa Principal Magistrate Hon. Margaret Wanjeri Murage Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Agneta A. Ndege Ogonda Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Damacline Bosibori Nyakundi Resident Magistrate NAIROBI SMALL CLAIMS COURT Hon. Susan Gakii Gitonga Resident Magistrate/Adjudicator Hon. Brenda Jaluha Ofisi Resident Magistrate/Adjudicator Hon. Judith Patience A. Omollo Resident Magistrate/Adjudicator KADHIS’ COURT - UPPERHILL Hon. Sukyan Omar Hassan Senior Principal Kadhi Hon. Ishaq Abduljabar Hussein Principal Kadhi Hon. Karanja Thulkif Waweru Kadhi I (SRK) MAKADARA LAW COURTS Hon. Emily Ominde Chief Magistrate Hon. Heston N. Nyaga Chief Magistrate Hon. Angelo Kithinji Rwito Chief Magistrate Hon. Ase Meresia Opondo Principal Magistrate Hon. Stephen S. Wadida Jalang'o Principal Magistrate Hon. Eva Kanyiri Kaimenyi Principal Magistrate Hon. Jacqueline C. Kibosia Principal Magistrate 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6322 6322 Hon. Eunice Cherotich Kimaiyo Principal Magistrate Hon. Lewis Kamanga Gatheru Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Mercy Achieng Ombima Resident Magistrate KIBERA LAW COURTS Hon. Joyce Mkambe Gandani Chief Magistrate Hon. Esther Boke Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Philip Mutua Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Monica Nyarango Nyakundi Principal Magistrate Hon. Derrick Khaemba Kuto Principal Magistrate Hon. Renee Musimbi Kitagwa Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Charles Mwaniki Kamau Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. William Tulel Lopokoiyit Resident Magistrate JKIA LAW COURTS Hon. Lucas O. Onyina Chief Magistrate Hon. Christine Mukami Njagi Senior Resident Magistrate KISUMU LAW COURTS Hon. Peter N. Gesora Chief Magistrate Hon. Robinson Ondieki Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Joane N. Wambilyanga Senior Principal Magistrate (DR CoA) Hon. Kemunto Winfrida Onkunya Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Stella Nekesa Telewa Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Martha Awidhi Agutu Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Maureen Iberia Shimenga Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Beryl Anyango Omollo Resident Magistrate Hon. Lina Akoth Resident Magistrate Hon. Kunyuk John Tito Principal Kadhi WINAM LAW COURTS Hon. Hezron Moibi Nyaberi Chief Magistrate Hon. Fatuma Mwanza Rashid Principal Magistrate Hon. Jocelyne Rino Kimetto Senior Resident Magistrate MASENO LAW COURTS Hon. Christopher Yalwala Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Chrispine Noel Choka Oruo Senior Resident Magistrate SIAYA LAW COURTS Hon. James Ongondo Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Lester Simiyu Principal Magistrate Hon. Margaret Muthoni Mwangi Resident Magistrate BONDO LAW COURTS Hon. John Paul Nandi Principal Magistrate Hon. Stella Wanjiru Mathenge Resident Magistrate UKWALA LAW COURTS Hon. Calestous Sindani Nambafu Principal Magistrate Hon. Christabel Irene Agutu Senior Resident Magistrate NYANDO LAW COURTS Hon. Samson O. Temu Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Kipngeno Reuben S. aka Sang Principal Magistrate TAMU LAW COURTS Hon. Purity Chepkorir Koskey Principal Magistrate Hon. Everlyne Makungu Onzere Principal Magistrate Homa Bay LAW COURTS Hon. Thomas Obutu Atanga Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Ruth B. Nabwire Maloba Principal Magistrate Hon. Tom Mark Olando Principal Magistrate (DR HC) Hon. Joy Shiundu Wesonga Principal Magistrate Hon. Opacha Jamal Omodoi Kadhi I (SRK) MBITA LAW COURTS Hon. Nicodemus N. Moseti Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Japheth Cheruiyot Bii Senior Resident Magistrate NDHIWA LAW COURTS 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Hon. Mary Ashisero Akala Principal Magistrate MIGORI LAW COURTS Hon. Dickson Odhiambo Onyango Chief Magistrate Hon. Johnstone Munguti Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Moses Oyoko Obiero Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Peter Nyagaka Areri Principal Magistrate Hon. Hellen Chepwogen Maritim Resident Magistrate RONGO LAW COURTS Hon. Raymond Kibet Langat Senior Resident Magistrate OYUGIS LAW COURTS Hon. Bernard Obae Omwansa Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Celesa Asis Okore Principal Magistrate KISII LAW COURTS Hon. Nathan Shiundu Lutta Chief Magistrate Hon. Ezekiel Angaga Obina Principal Magistrate Hon. Stephen Onjoro Khachuenu Principal Magistrate Hon. Paul Kipkemoi Mutai Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Dorcas Onam Mac’andere Resident Magistrate NYAMIRA LAW COURTS Hon. Margaret Wambani Onditi Chief Magistrate Hon. Maureen Cherono Nyigei Principal Magistrate Hon. Cyprian Waswa Wafula Resident Magistrate OGEMBO LAW COURTS Hon. Dennis Mikoyan Chief Magistrate Hon. Gloriah Nasimiyu Barasah Resident Magistrate KEROKA LAW COURTS Hon. Bethwel Kimutai Matata Principal Magistrate Hon. Simon Kaigongi Arome Senior Resident Magistrate KEHANCHA LAW COURTS Hon. Linus Nyakundi Mesa Principal Magistrate Hon. Anne Karimi Njeru Resident Magistrate KAKAMEGA LAW COURTS Hon. Bildad Ochieng Chief Magistrate Hon. Dolphina Atieno Alego Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Hazel Wandere Musisi Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Joseph Riitho Ndururi Principal Magistrate Hon. Malesi Eric Kidali Principal Magistrate Hon. Josephine Nyatuga Maragia Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Noelyne Akee Reuben Resident Magistrate Hon. Sabastiany D.O. Ratori Senior Principal Kadhi MUMIAS LAW COURTS Hon. Teresia A. Odera Chief Magistrate Hon. Willy Kipkoech Cheruiyot Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Marcella Amondi Onyango Resident Magistrate BUTERE LAW COURTS Hon. Felix Makoyo Omweri Principal Magistrate Hon. Gladys Achieng Ollimo Resident Magistrate BUTALI LAW COURTS Hon. Joseph N. Nyakundi Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Carolyne Naliaka Njalale Senior Resident Magistrate VIHIGA LAW COURTS Hon. Samson Ongeri Omwenga Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Rose Mugeni Ndombi Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Mary Makena Gituma Resident Magistrate 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6324 6324 Hon. Zaharani M. Omar Kadhi I (SRK) HAMISI LAW COURTS Hon. Melanie Celestine A. Awino Principal Magistrate BUNGOMA LAW COURTS Hon. John G. King’ori Chief Magistrate Hon. Charles Soi Mutai Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Stephen O. Mogute Principal Magistrate Hon. Elias Ngugi Mwenda Principal Magistrate Hon. Gabriel Peter Omondi Principal Magistrate Hon. Angeline Achieng A. Odawo Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Sheikh Shaban Issa Muhammed Principal Kadhi WEBUYE LAW COURTS Hon. Mildred Munyekenye Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Nancy Nang’uni Barasa Principal Magistrate KIMILILI LAW COURTS Hon. Gladys Adhiambo Principal Magistrate Hon. Dennis Onyango Ogal Senior Resident Magistrate SIRISIA LAW COURTS Hon. Caroline M. Watimmah Senior Resident Magistrate BUSIA LAW COURTS Hon. Lucy Ambasi Chief Magistrate Hon. Patrick Olengo Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Phoebe Yiswa Kulecho Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Tina Awino Madowo Resident Magistrate Hon. Rachel Njoki Ng’ang’a Resident Magistrate Hon. Nyaboga Idris Nyamagosa Kadhi I (SRK) NAKURU LAW COURTS Hon. Josephat Burudi Kalo Chief Magistrate Hon. Elizabeth Katiwa Usui Chief Magistrate Hon. Lilian Arika Chief Magistrate Hon. Faith Karimi Munyi Principal Magistrate Hon. Isaac Karasi Orenge Principal Magistrate Hon. Yvonne Khatambi Inyama Principal Magistrate Hon. Rose Ombata Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Byson Benjamin Limo Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Kelly Eunice Aoma Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Daisy J. Mosse Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Nancy M. Makau Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Margaret Kathina Kyalo Resident Magistrate Hon. Juma Khamisi Tsanuo Principal Kadhi NAIVASHA LAW COURTS Hon. Kennedy Bidali Chief Magistrate Hon. Joseph Musembi Karanja Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Lyna Sarapai Principal Magistrate Hon. Esther Wangare Mburu Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Yusuf Mukhula Barasa Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Martin Njeru Mutua Resident Magistrate MOLO LAW COURTS Hon. Elena Gathoni Nderitu Chief Magistrate Hon. Samuel Wahome Chief Magistrate Hon. Rhoda Yator Principal Magistrate Hon. Alice Wairimu Mukenga Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Emmanuel Soita Siundu Resident Magistrate ELDORET LAW COURTS Hon. Linus Pogh’on Kassan Chief Magistrate Hon. Richard O. Odenyo Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Sylvia Rajula Wewa Senior Principal Magistrate 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Hon. Naomi Wairimu Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Grace Nasike Sitati Senior Resident Magistrate (DR HC) Hon. Barnabas Kibet Kiptoo Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Christine Achieng Menya Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Emily Chemeli Kigen Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Diana Wikunza Milimu Resident Magistrate Hon. Rosemary Kemunto Onkoba Resident Magistrate Hon. Isaack Hassan Mohamed Noor Principal Kadhi KAPSABET LAW COURTS Hon. Jacinta Atieno Orwa Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Duke Atuti Ocharo Principal Magistrate Hon. Bonface Wangai Wachira Resident Magistrate KITALE LAW COURTS Hon. Julius K. Ng’arng’ar Chief Magistrate Hon. Mary Immaculate Gwaro Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Cheronoh M. Kesse Principal Magistrate Hon. Virginia Wambui Karanja Principal Magistrate Hon. Symphie Nekesa Makila Principal Magistrate Hon. Duncan Kiptoo Mtai Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Mary Nyang’ara Osoro Resident Magistrate KERICHO LAW COURTS Hon. Samuel Mokua Chief Magistrate Hon. Solomon Kipkirui Ngetich Principal Magistrate Hon. Bernard Kipyegon Rugut Principal Magistrate Hon. Geoffrey Ontita Kimang’a Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Elizabeth Wairimu Karani Resident Magistrate Hon. Aziza Ajwang Resident Magistrate Hon. Ally Wayu Bakari Kadhi I (SRK) SOTIK LAW COURTS Hon. Evans W. Muleka Principal Magistrate Hon. Jackson Obuya Omwange Senior Resident Magistrate BOMET LAW COURTS Hon. Lilian Nafula Kiniale Principal Magistrate Hon. Kibelion Kipkurui Principal Magistrate Hon. Jeal Praxades Atieno Aduke Resident Magistrate ITEN LAW COURTS Hon. Charles Ariba Kutwa Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Caroline R. T. Ateya Senior Resident Magistrate KABARNET LAW COURTS Hon. Paul Biwott Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Nerolyne Miraho Idagwa Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Viennah Ong’oli Amboko Resident Magistrate ELDAMA-RAVINE LAW COURTS Hon. Richard Kipkemoi Koech Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Alice Chemosop Towett Senior Resident Magistrate NAROK LAW COURTS Hon. George Njenga Wakahiu Chief Magistrate Hon. Adelaide Namabihi Sisenda Resident Magistrate KILGORIS LAW COURTS Hon. Robert M. Oanda Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Wilson Kipchumba Kitur Senior Resident Magistrate KAJIADO LAW COURTS Hon. Susan M. Shitubi Chief Magistrate Hon. Irene Marcia Kahuya Principal Magistrate Hon. Becky Mulemia Cheloti Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Edwin Mulochi Resident Magistrate 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6326 6326 Hon. Kutwaa Mohammed Abdalla Senior Principal Kadhi LOITOKTOK LAW COURTS Hon. Judicaster Nthambi Nthuku Principal Magistrate Hon. Caroline Wambui Ndumia Resident Magistrate NGONG LAW COURTS Hon. Pamela Achieng Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Irene Ruguru Ngotho Principal Magistrate KAPENGURIA LAW COURTS Hon. Samuel Kiprotich Mutai Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Margaret Nafula Makokha Principal Magistrate Hon. Godfrey Geno Okwengu Lui Resident Magistrate MARALAL LAW COURTS Hon. John Lolwatan Tamar Senior Principal Magistrate LODWAR LAW COURTS Hon. Mwangi Karimi Mwangi Chief Magistrate Hon. Christine Wekesa Mulongo Principal Magistrate (DR HC) Hon. Ken Muraguri Muchiri Resident Magistrate KAKUMA LAW COURTS Hon. Jackline Wekesa Mukhwana Principal Magistrate Hon. Rashid Kokonya Otundo Principal Kadhi NANYUKI LAW COURTS Hon. Lucy Mutai Chief Magistrate Hon. Ben Mararo Principal Magistrate Hon. Vincent Masivo Mechumo Resident Magistrate NYAHURURU LAW COURTS Hon. Judith Wanjala Chief Magistrate Hon. Charles Obulutsa Chief Magistrate Hon. Susan Njeri Mwangi Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. James H. S. Wanyanga Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Cynthia Mercy Muhoro Resident Magistrate Hon. Vincent Kipkoech Kiplagat Resident Magistrate NYERI LAW COURTS Hon. Wendy K. Micheni Chief Magistrate Hon. James Macharia Muriuki Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Harrison Adika Musa Sajide Principal Magistrate (DR CoA) Hon. Mathias Okuche Principal Magistrate Hon. Ruth Kefa Chebesio Principal Magistrate Hon. Nelly Wangechi Kariuki Principal Magistrate (DR HC) Hon. Faith Kawira Muguongo Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Maisy Pauline Chesang Resident Magistrate Hon. Mercyline Nafula Lubia Resident Magistrate (DR HC) Hon. Bedzenga Said Khamis Senior Principal Kadhi OTHAYA LAW COURTS Hon. Monica Nasiche Munyendo Principal Magistrate Hon. David Muchangi Ireri Senior Resident Magistrate KARATINA LAW COURTS Hon. Agnes Mwangi Wahito Principal Magistrate Hon. Njalale Karen Mukhaye Principal Magistrate Hon. Viola Sandrah Kosgei Resident Magistrate MUKURWEINI LAW COURTS Hon. Dennis Kiprono Matutu Principal Magistrate Hon. Edina Nyaboke Angima Resident Magistrate MURANG’A LAW COURTS Hon. Benjamin A. Mitullah Senior Principal Magistrate 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Hon. Edwin Nyaga Muriuki Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Victoria Achieng Ochanda Senior Resident Magistrate (DR HC) Hon. Sheila Karimi Nyaga Resident Magistrate KANGEMA LAW COURTS Hon. Peter N. Kiama Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Irene Wangui Gichobi Principal Magistrate KIGUMO LAW COURTS Hon. Kibet Sambu Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Eddah Savai Agade Senior Resident Magistrate THIKA LAW COURTS Hon. Julius Mukut Nangea Chief Magistrate Hon. Anne Mwangi Chief Magistrate Hon. Ben Mark Ekhubi Principal Magistrate Hon. Faith Mueni Mutuku Principal Magistrate (DR ELC) Hon. Vicky Adhiambo Kachuodho Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Oscar M. Ruguru Wanyaga Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Electer Akoth Riany Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Valarie Emelda Adhiambo Resident Magistrate RUIRU LAW COURTS Hon. Clarence Otieno Awuor Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Jacqueline A. Agonda Principal Magistrate Hon. Catherine K. Kisiangani Senior Resident Magistrate GATUNDU LAW COURTS Hon. Letizia M. Wachira Chief Magistrate Hon. Hosea Mwangi Ng’ang’a Principal Magistrate KANDARA LAW COURTS Hon. Manuela Wanjiru Kinyanjui Principal Magistrate Hon. Erick Musyoka Mutunga Principal Magistrate Hon. Margaret Wangare Kurumbu Senior Resident Magistrate KIAMBU LAW COURTS Hon. Patricia Gichohi Chief Magistrate Hon. Stella Atambo Chief Magistrate Hon. Theresa B. Nyangena Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Grace A. Omodho Principal Magistrate Hon. Wilson Rading Outa Senior Resident Magistrate (DR HC) Hon. Rita Kerubo Orora Resident Magistrate GITHUNGURI LAW COURTS Hon. Barbara Ojoo Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Victor Karago Asiyo Senior Resident Magistrate KIKUYU LAW COURTS Hon. Daniel Musyoka Ngalu Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Zipporah Wawira Gichana Principal Magistrate Hon. Geoffrey Onsarigo Osoro Senior Resident Magistrate LIMURU LAW COURTS Hon. Everlyne S.A. Olwande Chief Magistrate (JSC Rep) Hon. Carolyne Nyaguthii M. Makari Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Fredrick Koome Imaana Resident Magistrate KAHAWA LAW COURTS Hon. Diana Rachel K. Mochache Chief Magistrate Hon. Boaz Maura Ombewa Senior Principal Magistrate ENGINEER LAW COURTS Hon. Harrison Barasa Omwima Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Daffline Nyaboke Sure Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Rawlings Liluma Musiega Resident Magistrate KERUGOYA LAW COURTS 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6328 6328 Hon. Alex Ithuku Chief Magistrate Hon. Eric Otieno Wambo Principal Magistrate Hon. Grace Wangui Kirugumi Principal Magistrate Hon. Charity Cheruto Kipkorir Principal Magistrate BARICHO LAW COURTS Hon. Antony Kinuthia Mwicigi Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Monicah Njoki Kivuti Senior Resident Magistrate GICHUGU LAW COURTS Hon. Leah Wandia Kabaria Principal Magistrate Hon. Keyne Odhiambo Gweno Resident Magistrate WANG’URU LAW COURTS Hon. Gerald Muuo Mutiso Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Miriam Mugure Peter Principal Magistrate EMBU LAW COURTS Hon. Henry Nyabuto Nyakweba Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Julian Kabugo Ndeng’eri Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Tony Kipkorir aka Tony Kwambai Senior Resident Magistrate RUNYENJES LAW COURTS Hon. Josephat Waititu Gichimu Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Sharon Phoebe Ouko Resident Magistrate SIAKAGO LAW COURTS Hon. Ngumi Wangeci Principal Magistrate Hon. Edwin Wasike Nyongesa Principal Magistrate MERU LAW COURTS Hon. Dominica Nyambu Chief Magistrate Hon. Stella Nabwire Abuya Chief Magistrate Hon. Thomas Mwangi Muraguri Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Evans Ayiema Mbicha Principal Magistrate (DR HC) Hon. Leah N. Juma Kisabuli Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Maureen Atieno Odhiambo Resident Magistrate Hon. Edward Tsimonjero Resident Magistrate Hon. Muriuki Nicholas Murithi Kadhi I (SRK) CHUKA LAW COURTS Hon. John Njoroge Muniu Chief Magistrate Hon. Mwakwambirwa M. Sudi Principal Magistrate Hon. Racheal Njoki Kahara Senior Resident Magistrate MARIMANTI LAW COURTS Hon. Peter Maina Ndwiga Chief Magistrate Hon. Stephen Munene Nyaga Senior Resident Magistrate NKUBU LAW COURTS Hon. Joan Irura Muringi Principal Magistrate Hon. Ezra Masira Ayuka Senior Resident Magistrate GITHONGO LAW COURTS Hon. Susan Ndegwa Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Evalyne Wachera Ndegwa Resident Magistrate MAUA LAW COURTS Hon. Tito Maoga Gesora Chief Magistrate Hon. Carolyne Kenda Obara Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Andrew Githinji Munene Principal Magistrate Hon. Millicent Chepkurui Nyigei Senior Resident Magistrate TIGANIA LAW COURTS Hon. Sogomo Gathogo Principal Magistrate Hon. Paul Matanda Wechuli Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Rose Akoth Ongira Resident Magistrate 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE MACHAKOS LAW COURTS Hon. Alfred Gethi Kibiru Chief Magistrate Hon. Evans Hezekiah Keago Chief Magistrate Hon. Carolyne Ocharo Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Anne Wanjiku Nyoike Principal Magistrate Hon. Charles Nchore Ondieki Principal Magistrate Hon. Jerop Brenda Bartoo Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Nelly Chelagat K. Kenei Resident Magistrate Hon. Eric Analo Musambai Resident Magistrate Hon. Khamis Ramadhani Principal Kadhi MAVOKO LAW COURTS Hon. Charity Chebii Oluoch Chief Magistrate Hon. Bernard Kasavuli Principal Magistrate Hon. Hellen Onkwani Principal Magistrate Hon. Rose Wahu Gitau Resident Magistrate KITHIMANI LAW COURTS Hon. Gilbert Omuyaku Shikwe Principal Magistrate Hon. Eva Wanjiku Wambugu Senior Resident Magistrate KANGUNDO LAW COURTS Hon. Desderias Orimba Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Martha Akoth Opanga Senior Resident Magistrate TAWA LAW COURTS Hon. Martin Kinyua Mutegi Principal Magistrate Hon. Lawrence Kyasya Mwendwa Principal Magistrate MAKUENI LAW COURTS Hon. James N. Mwaniki Chief Magistrate Hon. George Rachemi Sagero Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Joan Atieno Otieno Resident Magistrate KILUNGU LAW COURTS Hon. Charles Alberto O. Mayamba Principal Magistrate Hon. Elizabeth Murugi Muiru Principal Magistrate MAKINDU LAW COURTS Hon. Jared O. Magori Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Benson Ireri Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Anastasia Gathoni Ndung’u Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Jacqueline Dama Karani Resident Magistrate KITUI LAW COURTS Hon. Stephen Mbungi Chief Magistrate Hon. Margaret A. Kasera Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Felistus Nekesa Okola Resident Magistrate Hon. Maureen Mumbi Kimani Resident Magistrate Hon. Mvudi Masoud Makange Kadhi I (SRK) MUTOMO LAW COURTS Hon. Paul Mutia Mayova Principal Magistrate Hon. John Waweru Wang’ang’a Senior Resident Magistrate MWINGI LAW COURTS Hon. Mogire Onkoba Principal Magistrate Hon. Israel Gwiyo Ruhu Resident Magistrate KYUSO LAW COURTS Hon. Mercy Nasimiyu Wanyama Principal Magistrate Hon. John Ochoe Aringo Senior Resident Magistrate MARSABIT LAW COURTS Hon. Tom Mbayaki Wafula Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Collins Ombija Apiyo Resident Magistrate 8:37 AM THE KENYA GAZETTE 17th November, 2021 6330 6330 Hon. Adan Ibrahim Tullu Principal Kadhi ISIOLO LAW COURTS Hon. Samuel M. Mungai Chief Magistrate Hon. Evanson Ngigi Principal Magistrate Hon. Athman Abduhalim Hussein Senior Principal Kadhi Hon. Galgalo Adan Principal Kadhi – Garbatulla Hon. Mustafa Guyo Shunu Kadhi I (SRK) – Merti MOYALE LAW COURTS Hon. Edward Kiprono Too Principal Magistrate Hon. Simon Kimani Mburu Principal Magistrate Hon. Ali Dida Wako Principal Kadhi MOMBASA LAW COURTS Hon. Evans K. Makori Chief Magistrate Hon. Ameyo Edna Asachi Nyaloti Chief Magistrate Hon. Francis N. Kyambia Chief Magistrate Hon. Charles Ngure Ndegwa Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Alberty Saitabau Lesootia Principal Magistrate (DR ELRC) Hon. Maureen Lambisia Nabibya Principal Magistrate Hon. Martin Osano Achoka Rabera Principal Magistrate Hon. Vincent Okello Adet Principal Magistrate Hon. Ritah Mukungu Amwayi Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Gideon Kiage Oenga Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Christine Atieno Ogweno Resident Magistrate Hon. Erastus Maina Muchoki Resident Magistrate Hon. Joshua Muchera Nyakiri Resident Magistrate KADHIS’ COURT MOMBASA Hon. Al Muhdhar A. Hussein Chief Kadhi Hon. Juma A. Abdalla Senior Principal Kadhi Hon. Habib Salim Vumbi Principal Kadhi TONONOKA CHILDREN’S COURT Hon. Viola Jepkorir Yator Principal Magistrate Hon. Lucy Khahendi Sindani Senior Resident Magistrate SHANZU LAW COURTS Hon. Florence Wangari Macharia Chief Magistrate Hon. Yusuf Abdalla Shikanda Principal Magistrate Hon. David Ochieng Odhiambo Resident Magistrate MALINDI LAW COURTS Hon. Julie Oseko (Dr.) Chief Magistrate Hon. William Chepseba Chief Magistrate Hon. Dorothy Ivy N.N. Wasike Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Olga Juma Kanaiza Onalo Resident Magistrate Hon. Talib B. Mohammed Senior Principal Kadhi GARSEN LAW COURTS Hon. Paul K. Rotich Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Eugene Melville Kadima Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Mursal Mohamed Sizi Kadhi I (SRK) KALOLENI LAW COURTS Hon. Leah Njambi Waigera Principal Magistrate Hon. Mary Wanjiru Njuguna Resident Magistrate KILIFI LAW COURTS Hon. Justus Mulei Kituku Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Daniel Sitati Sifuma Resident Magistrate Hon. Mwambele M. Suleiman Kadhi I (SRK) VOI LAW COURTS Hon. Dorcas Wangeci Maiteri Principal Magistrate Hon. Cecilia Karimi Kithinji Principal Magistrate Hon. Fredrick Mayaka Nyakundi Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Abdullahi Mohammed Senior Principal Kadhi MARIAKANI LAW COURTS Hon. Stephen Kalai Ngii Principal Magistrate Hon. Nelly Chepchirchir Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Omar Khamis Swaleh Kadhi I (SRK) WUNDANYI LAW COURTS Hon. Emily Moraa Nyakundi Resident Magistrate TAVETA LAW COURTS 17th November, 2021 THE KENYA GAZETTE Hon. Benson Sikuku Khapoya Principal Magistrate Hon. Louser Adisa Chembeni Resident Magistrate KWALE LAW COURTS Hon. Joe Mkutu Omido Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. Patrick Wambugu Mwangi Principal Magistrate Hon. Christine Kemuma Auka Resident Magistrate Hon. Mwaito Salim Juma Principal Kadhi Hon. Wendo Shaban Wendo Kadhi I (SRK) MSAMBWENI LAW COURTS Hon. Sandra Achieng Ogot Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Mohamed Garama Randu Kadhi I (SRK) LAMU LAW COURTS Hon. Allan Temba Sitati Principal Magistrate Hon. Martin Maina Wachira Principal Magistrate Hon. Swaleh Mohamed Ali Principal Kadhi MPEKETONI LAW COURTS Hon. Robert G. Mundia Principal Magistrate Hon. Eugene Pascal Nabwana Resident Magistrate Hon. Gavava Awadh Mohamed Kadhi I (SRK) – Witu HOLA LAW COURTS Hon. Peter Aloyce Ndege Principal Magistrate Hon. Benson Ngigi Kabanga Resident Magistrate Hon. Salim Mwidadi Abdullah Principal Kadhi GARISSA LAW COURTS Hon. Cosmas M. Maundu Chief Magistrate Hon. Timothy Ole Tanchu Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Dennis Waweru Mbuteti Resident Magistrate Hon. Sheikh M. Hassan Senior Principal Kadhi Hon. Dogo Sheikh Dabasoo Kadhi I (SRK) Hon. Abdiaziz Maalim Mohamed Principal Kadhi – Modogashe Hon. Daffa Hassan Omar Kadhi I (SRK) – Bura (Fafi) Hon. Mohamud I. Mohamed Kadhi I (SRK) – Balambala Hon. Mohamed Kule Muhumed Kadhi I (SRK) – Ijara DAADAB LAW COURTS Hon. James Jesse Masiga Principal Magistrate Hon. Fahad Ismael Mohamed Kadhi I (SRK) WAJIR LAW COURTS Hon. Amos Kiprop Makoross Principal Magistrate Hon. Vincent Mugendi Nyaga Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Abdi Osman Sheikh Kadhi I (SRK) Hon. Dadacha Ali Ibrahim Kadhi I (SRK) – Bute Hon. Wehliye Mohamed Sheikh Kadhi I (SRK) – Eldas HABASWEIN KADHIS COURT Hon. Malampu Abdilatif Silau Principal Kadhi MANDERA LAW COURTS Hon. Peter Wabomba Wasike Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Mukabi Kimani Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. Sambul M. Muhiyidin Kadhi I (SRK) Hon. Hussein Mohamed Hassan Kadhi I (SRK) – Elwak Hon. Ahmed Issack Maalim Kadhi I (SRK) –Takaba Dated the 15th November, 2021. MARTHA K. KOOME, Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court.