GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 16783

IN ACCORDANCE with the requirements under section 5 (2) (b) of the Judicial Service Act, 2011, the Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya publishes the State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report 2024/2025. Dated the 21st November, 2025. MARTHA K. KOOME, Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya. FOREWORD FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE I am honoured to present ‘the State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice’ (SOJAR) Report for the Financial Year 2024/25 to Parliament and to the people of Kenya. This annual report is a constitutional and statutory accountability mechanism through which the Judiciary reports on its performance in discharging judicial functions. It reflects our steadfast commitment to the principles of transparency, integrity, and accountability that anchor the administration of justice. This year’s SOJAR outlines the milestones achieved, reforms undertaken, and challenges encountered as we strive to deliver on our constitutional mandate of ensuring access to justice for all. In addition, in line with its thematic focus on ‘enhancing accountability and public trust in the Judiciary’, the Report highlights institutional initiatives undertaken to entrench integrity and root out corruption from our judicial and administrative processes. It is important to emphasise that combating corruption requires a whole-of-society approach. This vice has permeated deeply into our culture, value systems, and governance structures. Over time, it has been normalised, concealed, and even rationalised. Therefore, to effectively fight this vice, the government and Kenyans must work together to transform values and behaviours across all levels of society. Put differently, eliminating corruption must be a whole-of-government and whole-of-society endeavour that brings together the Executive, Legislature, Judiciary, Independent Commissions, Agencies in the Justice Sector, the Law Society of Kenya, civil society, the private sector, religious institutions, and, above all, citizens who are committed to upholding integrity and embracing ethical conduct as a national value and personal duty. Within the Judiciary, we have adopted a Zero Tolerance Policy on Corruption, anchored in concrete institutional measures. During the year, the Judiciary operationalised Court Integrity Committees in all court stations and rolled out implementation of the Anti-Corruption Guiding Framework, a sector-wide initiative under the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ). In addition, under the auspices of the NCAJ, we also launched Guidelines for the Expeditious Trial of Corruption Cases to enhance efficiency and consistency in handling corruption and economic crime cases. Internal accountability mechanisms were equally strengthened. The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) processed petitions and disciplinary cases against judges, judicial officers, and staff, ensuring that misconduct was addressed firmly, fairly, and transparently. The establishment of the Employee Protection Unit (EPU) and the Employee Protection and Inclusivity Committee (EPIC) created safe and confidential channels for reporting workplace sexual harassment and misconduct. Together, these interventions have fostered a culture of integrity and accountability across the institution. Recognising that public trust is built on openness and ethical conduct, the Judiciary prioritised communication and engagement as key enablers of accountability. The establishment of the Judiciary Spokesperson’s Office, hosting of Judiciary Dialogue Day and Open Days, and strengthening of citizen feedback mechanisms deepened interaction with the public and stakeholders. These forums provided platforms for direct engagement, promoting dialogue and mutual learning that inform our strategies for improving service delivery. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8078 8078 The Judiciary intensified efforts to reduce backlog, recognising it as a barrier to timely justice. Service Weeks and Rapid Results Initiatives (RRIs) were deployed to clear long-pending matters, particularly in family, commercial, tax, and public interest cases. Notably, the Judiciary recorded significant gains in case disposal. A total of 621,425 cases were filed as compared to 647,686 resolved cases, reflecting a Case Clearance Rate of 104% - a historic achievement in reducing pending cases. Backlog declined by 30%, with the most notable reductions in Magistrates’ Courts and the High Court. An analysis of case filings by type revealed an 8% overall decline in criminal cases and a 58% increase in civil cases compared to the previous year. This increase in civil cases was largely driven by the rapid expansion of Small Claims Courts, which now number 40 nationwide. Significant progress was made in expanding judicial presence across the country. A new Court of Appeal sub-registry was operationalised, bringing the total number of the court’s sub-registries to six. In the same token, a new High Court station was established, and five High Court sub- registries became operational in counties that do not host High Court stations. This expansion now ensures High Court presence in all 47 counties, with 47 High Court stations and seven sub-registries. An Appeal Division was created for the Environment and Land Court, raising the number of the court’s divisions to three, while two new sub-registries were added, increasing the total sub-registries to six. At the subordinate court level, six new Magistrates’ Courts were operationalised, increasing the total number of stations to 143. The rollout of Small Claims Courts continued with three new courts established, bringing the total number of operational Small Claims Courts to 40, supported by one sub- registry. The Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal transitioned to the Judiciary, bringing the total number of tribunals operating under the Judiciary to 27 out of 43 gazetted tribunals. Shared services were also launched in Nairobi and Kisumu for tribunals to enhance access to justice and optimise resources. In addition, the Mahakama Popote initiative enabled redistribution of caseloads across stations through digital platforms, easing congestion in high-volume areas and expanding access to justice. A total of 19,089 cases identified in these courts were redistributed to judicial officers in other stations with lower caseloads, out of which 14,240 were resolved. This enhanced access to justice by reducing case backlog. The use of Alternative Justice Systems (AJS) and Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) provided faster, less adversarial, and more affordable dispute resolution pathways, restoring relationships and reducing systemic pressure on courts. During the year, 14 new CAM registries were established bringing the number of court stations where CAM was adopted to 94 court stations. AJS County Action Plans were launched in six additional counties, increasing the total to ten counties where the AJS policy is now being implemented as a means of expanding access to justice through multiple doorways. Digitisation continued to transform judicial services. Investments in e-filing, the Case Tracking System (CTS), transcription services, and the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system streamlined workflows, and reduced reliance on manual processes. These reforms have made judicial services more transparent, efficient, and accessible to the public. The Judiciary’s performance in FY 2024/25 reflects a strong and steady trajectory of reform anchored in the ‘Social Transformation through Access to Justice’ (STAJ) blueprint. It demonstrates a justice system that is becoming more open, more inclusive, and more responsive to the needs of the people. I express my appreciation to Honourable Judges, Judicial officers, and staff for their dedication, resilience, and commitment to service. I also thank the Government, justice sector partners, and stakeholders for their unwavering support in building a justice system that is fair, accessible, efficient, and faithful to our Constitution and the rule of law. HON. JUSTICE MARTHA KOOME, Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya. NOTE FROM THE DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE The Judiciary recognises that public trust is essential if it is to be effective in delivering and promoting justice provision. Ensuring and enhancing accountability in all aspects of the Judiciary’s operations, judicial and administrative, is crucial to cultivating public trust in the institution. During the reporting period, the Judiciary took steps to enhance accountability, through transformative jurisprudence, strengthening administrative and disciplinary systems, and improved access for, outreach to, and communication with, court users and the general public whom the institution is duty bound to serve. Notable interventions during the reporting period saw the strengthening of the Judiciary complaints handling systems, establishment of the Employee Protection Unit in the Office of the Chief Justice, and the setting up of Court Integrity Committees across the institution as part of the implementation of the Judiciary’s anti- corruption policies, particularly through addressing weaknesses and risks identified in the EACC Systems Audit undertaken in 2022. The Judiciary took deliberate steps to improve communication and information sharing with court users and the public, hosting the inaugural Judiciary Dialogue Day in January 2025 and establishing a Judiciary Call Centre. In addition to making the institution more accessible through expanded physical infrastructure and improved virtual accessibility, the Judiciary continued to undertake outreach programmes, notable amongst them was the lecture and dialogue series by the Supreme Court as part of its Supreme Court @ 12 celebrations. The SOJAR Report reflects the institutions commitment to building and maintaining public trust through transparency, fairness, competence, integrity, accessibility, and engagement & communication. Whilst significant gains have been made, the institution is alive to the challenges many continue to face in accessing justice through our courts and tribunals. That is why the assessment and engagement with this Annual Report by all justice system stakeholders is so important. The solutions and strategies to overcome our justice challenges require a whole-justice-system/whole-of- society approach based on authentic collaboration and partnership in guiding decisions about present and future justice. The SOJAR Report provides a frank, honest, evidence-based platform from which such a discourse can be conducted towards socially transformative justice for all. HON. LADY JUSTICE PHILOMENA MBETE MWILU, Deputy Chief Justice and Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Kenya. MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF THE JUDICIARY It is an honor to join the Chief Justice in presenting the SOJAR Report for the FY 2024/20245, a report that carries profound importance in the continuum of our annual reporting tradition. This report aims to deliver an in-depth overview of the Judiciary's initiatives, accomplishments, and obstacles encountered throughout the financial year, underscoring the commitment to transparency, accountability, and a people-centered justice system. During the review period, the Judiciary continued to advance its transformative vision under the Social Transformation through Access to Justice Blueprint, with Accountability and Public Trust identified as a key outcome of this framework. The year emerged as a pivotal moment for enhancing institutional integrity, optimising service delivery, and strengthening frameworks that guarantee the equitable, transparent, and efficient administration of justice for all stakeholders. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE The report outlines the Judiciary’s steadfast approach in its dedication to fostering a culture of accountability through improved financial scrutiny, comprehensive internal and external audits, fortified performance management systems, and the implementation of integrity frameworks including the establishment of Court Integrity Committees. These mechanisms have not only fostered transparency but also reinforced the notion that the legitimacy of the Judiciary is fundamentally rooted in the confidence and trust of the populace it serves. Digitisation efforts were intensified through the expansion of the Case Tracking System (CTS), e-filing, and automated registries, making judicial processes more visible and accessible. Equally, the operationalisation of public feedback channels, stakeholder forums, and Judiciary Open Days bridged the gap between the courts and the citizens, fostering a responsive justice system. Our collective progress is also the product of dedicated Judges, Judicial Officers, and Judiciary Staff who uphold integrity and excellence in service delivery. Their contributions have strengthened the Judiciary’s function not merely as a provider of justice but also as a paragon of accountability within the public sector. As we continue to implement the STAJ Blueprint, the Judiciary remains resolute in sustaining reforms that promote ethical leadership, transparency, and efficiency. Building and maintaining public trust is not a one- off achievement, but a continuous pursuit that demands vigilance, discipline, and commitment to the rule of law. HON. WINFRIDAH B. MOKAYA, Chief Registrar of the Judiciary. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8080 8080 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice Report (SOJAR) for FY 2024/25 presents a comprehensive account of the Judiciary’s performance, reforms and innovations in delivering justice. During the review period, the Judiciary expanded access to justice through new courts, sub-registries, tribunals, and specialized divisions. The Court of Appeal opened a Garissa sub-registry, bringing the total to six, the High Court added two courts in Isiolo and Makadara expanding its presence to 47 stations in 42 counties and the Environment and Land Court established an Appeals Division in Nairobi. Six new Magistrates Courts were operationalized increasing the total number of Magistrates’ Courts in the country to 143 stations in 133 constituencies, while 3 Small Claims Courts were established increasing the total to 40. The Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal transitioned to the Judiciary, bringing to 27 the number of tribunals now operating under its administration out of 43 gazetted tribunals. Fourteen new Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) registries were set up, increasing the total to 82 across 42 counties. Case filings rose by 20% to 621,425, while resolutions increased by 25% to 647,686, achieving a clearance rate of 104%. Criminal filings fell by 8%, whereas civil filings rose by 58%, largely driven by Small Claims Court matters. Pending cases reduced by 3% to 601,490, and backlog cases (over one year old) fell by 30% to 177,081, mainly in the High Court and Magistrates’ Courts. Women comprised 28% of litigants in superior courts, 11% in magistrates’ courts, 32% of tribunal applicants, 35% in Kadhis’ Courts, and 20% in Small Claims Courts. Children’s cases accounted for 7% of all filings. Through the Mahakama Popote initiative, 19,089 cases from high-volume courts were redistributed to stations with lower caseloads, resulting in 14,240 cases being resolved. A total of 677 cases were concluded through Alternative Justice Systems (AJS) in counties where the Judiciary was actively monitoring referrals. The Prison Decongestion Programme, launched at the Industrial Area Remand and Maximum Prison, reviewed 3,157 cases, leading to probation placements, community service orders, sentence reductions, and releases. The Supreme Court delivered landmark rulings on inheritance, environmental accountability and legislative processes. The Court of Appeal clarified matters on succession, remuneration and tribunal jurisdiction, while the High Court issued significant decisions on criminal justice, housing, prisoners’ rights and presidential appointments. Specialised courts, tribunals and Small Claims Courts advanced jurisprudence in labour rights, land governance, child protection and contract enforcement. Alternative Justice Systems also contributed to resolving complex disputes through community-based mechanisms. Technology further enhanced efficiency and access through the Judiciary Mobile App, alongside improvements in case tracking, AI speech-to- text transcription and digital connectivity, now covering 177 courts and offices nationwide. The Judiciary has made significant progress in strengthening accountability through reforms, policies, and institutional innovations. Mechanisms such as OJO, EPU, JCMS, and the Call Centre have enhanced transparency, while disciplinary and financial oversight reforms have reinforced integrity. Achievements such as a 90% complaint resolution rate, high staff appraisal compliance, and asset recovery demonstrate real progress. However, challenges remain in resource gaps, corruption risks, and gender disparities. Moving forward, the Judiciary will deepen ICT integration, expand ethics training, and sustain oversight mechanisms to strengthen public trust in the administration of justice. A total of 322,295 court case files across 128 stations were digitised under the Mahakama Digitisation Programme, representing 53 per cent of the targeted 611,580 files while 15,249 administrative records were digitised. Construction projects in Marimanti Law Courts and Dagoretti Law Courts were completed, while planned developments in Mihang’o and Kasarani were deferred due to funding constraints. The staffing level stood at 6,979, representing 64 per cent of the approved establishment of 10,870 positions. This comprised 202 judges, 566 Magistrates, 46 Kadhis. 143 Tribunal members, 48 Registrars, 150 Law Clerks and Legal Researchers and 5,824 staff. The Judiciary was allocated KSh 22.78 billion against a requirement of KSh 44.90 billion, leaving a funding gap of KSh 22.12 billion (49%). Nonetheless, budget absorption improved to 98% in FY2024/25, while revenue collections surpassed the target at KSh2.88 billion, largely driven by increased court fees and automation. The funding deficits of KSh 22.12 billion had a far-reaching implication on the Judiciary’s ability to deliver on its constitutional mandate. Underfunding of recurrent expenditure, which covered critical operational needs such as salaries, contractual obligations and other operational expenses, undermined efficiency and contributed to the growing backlog of cases. Equally, the underfunding of the development budget affected infrastructure expansion, court construction, modernisation of courtrooms, and investment in ICT systems. As a result, efforts to enhance access to justice, digitise court operations and decentralise judicial services were significantly hampered. The Judiciary will continue to engage with Parliament and other stakeholders for an increase in the budgetary allocation to the institution, and to have this allocation anchored in the law as envisioned in the Social Transformation through Access to Justice Blueprint. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE MUKHTASARI WA KISHAHADA Ripoti ya Hali ya Mahakama na Utawala wa Haki kwa mwaka wa fedha 2024/25 inatoa maelezo ya kina kuhusu utendaji wa Mahakama, mageuzi na ubunifu uliotekelezwa katika utoaji wa haki. Katika kipindi cha mwaka wa fedha 2024/25, Mahakama ilipanua upatikanaji wa haki kupitia uanzishaji wa Mahakama ndogo za usajili, mabaraza na vitengo maalum (Tribunals). Mahakama ya Rufaa ilifungua ofisi ndogo ya usajili mjini Garissa, na kufanya jumla ya ofisi hizo kuwa sita. Mahakama Kuu iliongeza vituo viwili vipya vya mahakama katika Isiolo na Makadara, hivyo kuifanya iwe na mahakama arobaini na saba (47) katika kaunti arobaini na mbili (42), huku Mahakama ya Mazingira na Ardhi ikianzisha Kitengo cha Rufaa jijini Nairobi. Mahakama za Hakimu sita (6) zilifunguliwa, na kuongeza jumla ya Mahakama za Hakimu nchini hadi vituo mia moja arobaini na tatu (143) katika maeneo bunge mia moja thelathini na ttau (133), huku Mahakama Ndogo za Madai tatu (3) zikianzishwa, na kufanya jumla yake kuwa arobaini (40). Baraza Maalum la Marupurupu ya Kustaafu ilihamishwa rasmi chini ya usimamizi wa Mahakama, na kufanya jumla ya Baraza Maalum zinazoendeshwa na Mahakama kufikia ishirini na saba (27) kati ya arobaini na tatu (43) zilizoidhinishwa. Vituo vipya 14 vya usajili wa mfumo wa Upatanishi Ulioambatanishwa na Mahakama vilizinduliwa, na kufanya jumla ya mifumo hiyo kuwa themanini na mbili (82) katika kaunti arobaini na mbili (42). Idadi ya kesi zilizowasilishwa iliongezeka kwa asilimia ishirini (20) hadi kufikia milioni mia sita ishirini na moja, mia nne ishirini na tano (621,425), huku zilizotatuliwa zikiongezeka kwa asilimia ishirini na tano (25) hadi mia sita hamsini na saba elfu, mia sita themanini na sita (647,686), na kufanikisha kiwango cha utatuzi cha asilimia mia moja na nne (104). Kesi za jinai zilipungua kwa asilimia nane (8), huku kesi za madai zikipanda kwa asilimia hamsini na nane (58), hasa kutokana na ongezeko la kesi katika Mahakama Ndogo za Madai. Kesi zinazoendelea zilipungua kwa asilimia tatu (3) hadi mia sita na moja elfu, mia nne na tisini (601,490), na kesi za mrundiko (zilizozidi mwaka mmoja) zikapungua kwa asilimia thelathini (30) hadi elfu mia moja na sabini na saba, themanini na moja (177,081), hasa katika Mahakama Kuu na Mahakama za Hakimu. Wanawake walikuwa asilimia ishirini na nane (28) ya walalamikaji katika mahakama za juu, asilimia kumi na moja (11) katika mahakama za hakimu, asilimia thelathini na mbili (32) katika Mahakama Maalum, asilimia thelathini na tano (35) katika Mahakama za Kadhi, na asilimia ishirini (20) katika Mahakama Ndogo za Madai. Kesi za watoto zilichangia asilimia saba (7) ya kesi zote zilizowasilishwa. Kupitia mpango wa 'Mahakama Popote', jumla ya kesi elfu kumi na tisa na themanini na tisa (19,089) kutoka mahakama zenye mizigo mikubwa zilisambazwa upya kwa vituo vyenye mzigo mdogo wa kazi, na matokeo yake kesi elfu kumi na nne, mia mbili na arobaini (14,240) zilitolewa uamuzi. Kesi mia sita, sabini na saba (677) zilitatuliwa kupitia mifumo mbadala ya haki (Alternative Justice Systems – AJS) katika kaunti ambako Mahakama ilikuwa ikifuatilia utekelezaji. Mpango wa kupunguza msongamano wa wafungwa magerezani uliozinduliwa katika Gereza la Eneo la Viwanda (Industrial Area) ulipitia kesi elfu tatu, mia moja Hamsini na saba (3,157), na kusababisha baadhi ya wafungwa kupewa kazi za kuhudumia jamii, kupunguziwa vifungo au kuachiliwa. Mahakama ya Upeo ilitoa maamuzi muhimu kuhusu urithi, uwajibikaji wa mazingira na michakato ya kisheria. Mahakama ya Rufaa ilifafanua masuala kuhusu mirathi, mishahara na mamlaka ya Tribunals, huku Mahakama Kuu ikitoa maamuzi yenye uzito kuhusu haki za wafungwa, makazi, haki za jinai, na uteuzi wa viongozi wa serikali. Mahakama maalum, Baraza Maalum (Tribunals) na Mahakama Ndogo za Madai ziliendeleza tafsiri ya sheria katika nyanja za haki za wafanyakazi, usimamizi wa ardhi, ulinzi wa watoto na utekelezaji wa mikataba. Mifumo mbadala ya utoaji haki pia ilichangia kutatua migogoro tata kupitia njia za kijamii. Teknolojia iliendeleza ufanisi na upatikanaji wa huduma kupitia Programu ya Rununu ya Mahakama, Mfumo wa Usimamizi wa Wageni na Mtandao wa Mahakama, sambamba na maboresho katika ufuatiliaji wa kesi, uandishi wa hati kwa kutumia teknolojia ya Usemi wa AI kwa Maandishi, na miunganisho ya kidijitali ambayo sasa inafikia mahakama na ofisi mia moja sabini na saba (177) kote nchini. Ofisi ya Mpatanishi wa Mahakama ilitatua asilimia tisaini (90) ya zaidi ya malalamiko elfu moja mia mbili (1,200) kuhusu huduma, hasa yale yanayohusiana na huduma katika Mahakama za Hakimu. Malalamiko ya uadilifu yalihusu zaidi mahakimu na watumishi wa mahakama, ambapo kesi mia moja na kumi (110) ziliwasilishwa dhidi yao, na kesi mia moja (100) dhidi ya majaji, nusu ya ambazo tayari zimekamilika. Kesi za kinidhamu zilihusisha maafisa wa mahakama kumi (10) na watumishi wa mahakama mia moja na kumi na tano (115), na kusababisha adhabu, kufutwa kazi, kujiuzulu au kurejeshwa kazini. Miradi ya ujenzi ya Mahakama za Marimanti na Dagoretti ilikamilika, huku miradi iliyopangwa katika Mihang’o na Kasarani ikiahirishwa kutokana na ukosefu wa fedha. Jumla ya mafaili ya kesi mia tatu ishirini na mbili elfu, mia mbili tisini na tano (322,295) kutoka vituo mia moja ishirini na nane (128) yalihifadhiwa kidijitali chini ya Programu ya Udijitali Mahakamani, sawa na asilimia Hamsini na tatu (53) ya la faili mia sita na kumi na moja elfu, mia tano na themanini (611,580) yaliyolengwa, huku rekodi zingine elfu kumi na tano, mia mbili arobaini na tisa (15,249) pia zikihifadhiwa kwa mfumo wa kidijitali. Idadi ya watumishi wa Mahakama ilifikia elfu sita, mia tisa sabini na tisa (6,979), sawa na asilimia sitini na nne (64) ya nafasi zilizothibitishwa elfu kumi, mia nane na sabini (10,870). Hii ilijumuisha majaji mia mbili na mbili (202), mahakimu mia tano sitini na sita (566), makadhi arobaini na sita (46), wanachama wa Mahakama Maalum mia moja, arobaini na tatu (143), wasajili arobaini na nane (48), na wasaidizi wa kisheria nia moja Hamsini (150). Mahakama ilitengewa KSh 22.78 bilioni dhidi ya mahitaji ya KSh 44.90 bilioni, na kuacha pengo la KSh 22.12 bilioni (asilimia arobaini na tisa (49). Hata hivyo, matumizi ya bajeti yaliboreka hadi asilimia tisini na nane (98) katika mwaka wa fedha 2024/25, huku mapato yakizidi malengo kwa kufikia KSh 2.88 bilioni, hasa kutokana na ongezeko la ada za mahakama na matumizi ya mifumo ya kidijitali. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8082 8082 CHAPTER ONE: GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION INTRODUCTION Judicial authority in Kenya flows directly from the people and is exercised through courts and tribunals established under the Constitution, as set out in Articles 1 and 159. These provisions mandate the Judiciary to ensure that justice is administered to all persons without delay and without regard to status. The Constitution also requires the courts to promote alternative forms of dispute resolution, including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration, and traditional mechanisms so as to expand access to justice and safeguard social harmony. Guided by these constitutional prerogatives, the governance and strategic direction of the Judiciary is anchored in a leadership structure that spans superior courts and subordinate courts including specialized tribunals, supported by robust administrative organs. This framework ensures that decision-making, oversight, and accountability are exercised in a coherent and coordinated manner across the institution. This chapter sets out the governance structures and leadership of the Judiciary and the courts, together with the overarching policy framework that guides institutional performance. It highlights the Judiciary’s strategic focus areas during financial year 2024/2025, the implementation efforts undertaken to advance them, and the collaborative engagements that continue to strengthen accountability, institutional resilience, and public trust. 1.1 LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF THE JUDICIARY The Chief Justice serves as the Head of the Judiciary and the President of the Supreme Court, providing overall leadership and direction to the institution. The Chief Justice is deputised by the Deputy Chief Justice, who also serves as the Vice-President of the Supreme Court. The Chief Registrar of the Judiciary functions as the chief administrator and accounting officer, responsible for the overall management of the Judiciary’s operations, finances, and staff. Together, this leadership structure ensures coherence in judicial decision-making, institutional governance, and administrative efficiency. 1.1.1. Judiciary Leadership Teams & Committees As part of shared leadership, the Chief Justice employs an organised framework of standing and ad hoc committees to strengthen institutional governance. Standing committees oversee the core operations of the Judiciary, while ad hoc committees are constituted to address specific, time- bound tasks. These committees are composed of judges, judicial officers, and staff members, ensuring that decision-making is inclusive and reflective of the Judiciary’s diverse expertise. At the highest level is the Judiciary Leadership Team which is chaired by the Chief Justice, and comprises the Deputy Chief Justice, the leaders of all superior and subordinate courts, as well as chairpersons of select standing committees. The Deputy Chief Justice chairs the Judiciary Management Committee whose members are drawn from the chairpersons of all standing committees. The Chief Registrar chairs the Judiciary Management Team whose members include the Deputy Chief Registrar, all Registrars, Directors and Heads of Administrative Units. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Judiciary Honours Advisory Committee Chair Hon Lady Justice Martha Koome Consider and propose Judiciary personnel who merit national honours for outstanding service. Employee Protection and Inclusion Committee (EPIC) Chair: Hon Lady Justice Njoki Ndungu Oversees the implementation of policies, establishes safe reporting mechanisms for complaints, and reports incidents of sexual harassment to the Chief Justice for appropriate measures. Judiciary Committee on Elections (JCE) Chair Hon Lady Justice Njoki Ndungu Advise the Judiciary on administrative arrangements and measures for efficient processing of election related disputes. The committee also works in collaboration with KJA to develop and implement training programmes on efficient and effective management of election disputes. Integrated Court Management Systems Committee (ICMS) Chair Hon Mr Justice Isaac Lenaola Enhances utilization of ICT in all judicial and administrative functions, including guiding collaboration with other justice sector actors so as to advance the administration of justice. Public Affairs and Communication Advisory Committee (PAC) Chair Hon Mr Justice Isaac Lenaola: Develop and implement the Judiciary’s Communication Strategy and Policy, and manage information gateways within and outside of the Judiciary. Judiciary Security Committee Chair Hon Mr Justice William Ouko Ensure proper security coverage for all court stations, Judges, Judicial Officers, Staff, Court users and Judiciary installations. Building, Infrastructure and Facilities Development Committee (BIDC) Chair Hon Mr Justice William Ouko Guarantees strict adherence to the Judiciary project masterplan, prudent contract management for all construction projects and proper accountability of the Judiciary’s physical assets. Human Resource Management and Administration Committee (HRMC) Chair Hon Lady Justice Fatuma Sichale Operationalise the Judiciary’s organisation structure, advise on human resource gaps within the institution, cater for welfare of all employees and institutionalise a performance based culture for operations. Administration of Justice and Performance Management Committee (AJPMC) Chair Hon Lady Justice Agnes Murgor Ensures courts are established in all parts of the country, in line with the STAJ Blueprint. The Committee also undertakes the performance review of all courts and administrative units in the Judiciary. Rules Committee Chair Hon Mr Justice G. V. Odunga Propose rules to guide and facilitate efficient procedures before courts and tribunals to compliment the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and any other applicable law. Judiciary Public Finance Management Steering Committee (JPFMSC) Chair: Hon Winfridah Mokaya Ensures the Judiciary Fund is operationalised, equitable allocation of resources to all spending units, and proper utilization of the funds to meet fiduciary requirements. The committee is statutorily chaired by the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary LMTs Leadership and Management Teams Chaired by Presiding Judges, or Heads of Station to manage the affairs of courts stations Court User Committees CUCs Provide a platform for actors in the justice sector at local or regional level to consider collaborative ways toimprove service delivery 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8084 8084 Leadership and mandate of the Judiciary’s Standing Committees At the station level , shared leadership is exercised through Leadership and Management Teams (LMTs), which bring together judges, judicial officers, and staff representatives, and provide a platform for collaborative governance and joint decision-making on matters of administration and service delivery within court stations. In addition, each court station hosts a Court Users Committee (CUC), which serves as a forum for collaboration between the Judiciary and justice sector partners, both state and non-state. CUCs operate at the grassroots level to address emerging challenges in the administration of justice, promote coordinated service delivery, and strengthen public confidence in the justice system. 1.1.2. Court Structure and Leadership The Constitution establishes courts at two levels: • Superior Courts, which include the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Employment and Labour Relations Court, and the Environment and Land Court. • Subordinate Courts, which include the Magistrates’ Courts, Kadhis’ Courts, Courts Martial, the Small Claims Court, and Tribunals. The structure, jurisdiction and leadership of the courts is illustrated in Figure below. At the station level, Presiding Judges appointed by the Chief Justice oversee superior court stations, while subordinate court stations are led by Heads of Station, designated from among the Magistrates by the Chief Registrar in consultation with the Chief Justice. This governance arrangement ensures consistency, accountability, and efficiency in the day -to-day running of courts across the country. 1.1.3. Judiciary Associations 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Within the Judiciary, a number of self-governing professional associations play an important role in advancing the welfare of members, strengthening peer support, and promoting shared values. The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) represents judges and magistrates, advocating for their collective interests, independence, and professional development. The International Association of Women Judges – Kenya Chapter (IAWJ-Kenya) provides a platform for women judges to promote gender equality, mentorship, and initiatives that advance the rights of women and vulnerable groups. The Kenya Judges Welfare Association (KJWA) focuses on the social and economic well-being of judges, complementing institutional efforts to ensure a supportive working environment. The Kenya Judicial Staff Association (KJSA) brings together judicial staff, offering a unified voice on issues of welfare, capacity-building, and workplace rights. Together, these associations foster collegiality, strengthen institutional resilience, and contribute to a cohesive, motivated, and values-driven Judiciary. Importantly, their work complements the Judiciary’s Social Transformation through Access to Justice (STAJ) Blueprint by promoting welfare, inclusion, accountability, and professional excellence as cornerstones of sustainable transformation. As evidence of the Judiciary’s consultative approach to leadership, the Presidents of KMJA and KJSA sit on the Judiciary highest organ, the Judiciary Leadership Team, which makes policy prescriptions and provides strategic direction to the institution. 1.2 CORE STRATEGIC AREAS OF FOCUS The operations of the Judiciary are anchored in the Social Transformation through Access to Justice Blueprint, which provides the institution’s strategic direction for the period 2023 - 2033. The Blueprint responds to constitutional imperatives while aligning the Judiciary to emerging trends in governance, technology, and access to justice. The five outcomes of the Social Transformation through Access to Justice Blueprint During Financial Year 2024/2025, the Judiciary pursued a wide range of initiatives designed to strengthen institutional performance, safeguard constitutional mandates, and build lasting public trust. Anchored in the STAJ Blueprint, these reforms addressed governance and integrity, security, gender justice, digitisation, institutional expansion, efficiency in case management, alternative justice pathways, prudent resource management, and staff welfare. Collectively, they reinforced the Judiciary’s vision of a responsive, independent, and people-centred institution. These areas reflect both long-term strategic priorities and the need to respond to emerging challenges in the justice sector. 1.2.1 Transparency and Accountability The Judiciary advanced accountability and transparency through the expansion of e-filing, the Case Tracking System (CTS), and public cause-list portal. These innovations made case progress visible to litigants and the wider public, minimised delays, and enhanced data integrity, thereby strengthening confidence in judicial outcomes. Recognising that public trust is built on openness and ethical conduct, the Judiciary prioritised communication and integrity as core strategies. Responsive feedback channels were established, and the office of the Judiciary Spokesperson was created to improve public engagement and media relations. Regular public- facing forums such as the Judiciary Dialogue Day and Open Days provided opportunities for direct interaction between the public, stakeholders, and the Judiciary, enabling the exchange of ideas and concerns to improve service delivery. In reinforcing integrity, the Chief Justice launched the Anti-Corruption Strategic Guiding Framework for Kenya’s Justice Sector which is aimed at fostering a robust, transparent, and accountable justice system that proactively addresses the multifaceted challenges posed by corruption Within the Judiciary, this was complemented by the operationalisation of codes of conduct, the strengthening of court integrity committees, and sector- wide initiatives under the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ). Together, these measures supported a culture of transparency, ethical practice, and impartiality, reinforcing the Judiciary’s role as a trusted guardian of justice. 1.2.2 Security of Judiciary Personnel and Property The heightened threats to judicial spaces, including the destruction of several courts during demonstrations, underscored the vulnerability of judicial officers, staff, and facilities, as well as the urgent need for a comprehensive security framework to safeguard the administration of justice. In response, the Judiciary prioritised the protection of its installations and personnel as a matter of business continuity and public trust. Protective measures were reinforced across court premises, with enhanced collaboration between the Judiciary and the Judiciary Police Unit to strengthen on- site security and emergency preparedness. At the same time, the Judiciary engaged relevant state agencies to drive longer-term reforms aimed at ensuring that courts remain safe, accessible, and resilient spaces for justice seekers. 1.2.3 Advancing Child and Gender Justice 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8086 8086 The Judiciary scaled up gender justice initiatives to ensure that equality and the protection of vulnerable groups remain central to the administration of justice. Specialised Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) courts were expanded, supported by gender mainstreaming policies and continuous capacity-building through the Kenya Judiciary Academy. These measures responded to the rising incidences of sexual and gender-based violence, femicide, and other gender-related violations, which demand deliberate, system-wide reforms. In addressing these challenges, the Judiciary worked closely with state and non-state actors to embed gender-responsive approaches within judicial processes. Emphasis was placed on survivor-centred mechanisms in the handling of cases, ensuring sensitivity, timeliness, and dignity in proceedings. Beyond the courtroom, the Judiciary fostered partnerships across sectors and jurisdictions to strengthen collective action against gender-based injustices, reinforcing its commitment to building a justice system that is inclusive, responsive, and protective of all. 1.2.4 Automation and Digitisation Automation and digitisation remained a cornerstone of judicial reform during Financial Year 2024/2025. Investments in e-filing, CTS, transcription services, ERP systems, and AI-driven tools reduced reliance on manual processes, cut delays, and improved evidence-based decision- making across the institution. The Judiciary prioritised the ongoing automation and digitisation to improve accessibility, strengthen accountability and safeguard the integrity of information. This included the rollout of the ERP system to streamline workflows, reduce reliance on manual processes and promote timely decision-making. The Mahakama Digitisation Programme (MADIP) continued to enhance the digitisation of records to ensure that court records, processes and services were available in digital formats, enabling easier access, secure storage and greater transparency. At the service delivery level, Judiciary digitisation is transforming how Kenyans interact with the justice system. Court users can now file cases remotely, access court schedules and judgments online, and attend hearings through video-conferencing facilities, reducing travel time and costs. These innovations are particularly impactful in expanding access to justice for rural and marginalised communities, while also promoting environmental sustainability by cutting reliance on paper. Looking ahead, system digitisation provides the foundation for emerging technologies, including the potential adoption of artificial intelligence tools for case management, smart scheduling, and analytics to inform evidence-based judicial reforms. Through these digitisation initiatives, the Judiciary is laying the groundwork for a justice system that is not only independent and accessible but also adaptive to the evolving needs of society in a digital era. 1.2.5 Small Claims Courts To support economic actors and reduce the pressure on mainstream courts, the Judiciary significantly expanded the Small Claims Courts, which are designed to provide simple, fast, and affordable resolution of high-volume, low-value disputes. Operating on streamlined procedures, these courts dispose of matters within sixty days of filing, making them a game-changer for ordinary citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) whose survival often depends on timely resolution of commercial disputes. By unlocking stalled capital through quick settlement of claims, the courts directly contribute to improved cash flow for traders and entrepreneurs, strengthen business confidence, and stimulate local economic activity. Beyond easing access for litigants, Small Claims Courts also play a systemic role in decongesting superior and magistrates’ courts, allowing those courts to focus on more complex matters. Their rapid expansion across counties has widened the Judiciary’s footprint, bringing justice closer to communities while embodying the STAJ vision of a responsive, people-centred justice system. The model has also enhanced public trust by demonstrating that justice can be both efficient and affordable, offering a blueprint for future reforms in access to justice. 1.2.6 Tribunals’ Transition to the Judiciary The administration and operations of tribunals under the Judiciary advanced steadily through the Office of the Registrar of Tribunals, with the Tribunals supported by shared-service arrangements that provide common infrastructure, financial management, and administrative support. This process has strengthened governance standards by embedding Tribunals within the Judiciary’s accountability framework, ensuring greater consistency in leadership, decision-making, and service delivery. Integration has also streamlined operations; reducing duplication, harmonising procedures, and enabling Tribunals to benefit from Judiciary-wide innovations such as digitisation, case tracking, and financial oversight under the Jumuika ERP system. In aligning Tribunals with the Judiciary’s service delivery ethos, the transition enhances public confidence by making these specialised bodies more accessible, efficient, and transparent, while also ensuring that Tribunal users receive justice that meets the same standards of independence and integrity as the wider court system. In order to ensure Kenyans enjoy the full benefits of the operation of Tribunals under the Judiciary, there is need for Parliament to enact the Tribunals Bill which provides a comprehensive legal framework for the full transition of Tribunals to the Judiciary. 1.2.7 Case Backlog Reduction and Alternative Pathways to Justice The Judiciary intensified efforts to tackle case backlog, recognising it as a major barrier to timely justice and public confidence. Through the use of digital case tracking systems, courts were able to monitor case lifecycles more effectively and flag delays, while targeted service weeks mobilised judicial and administrative resources towards clearing long-pending matters. These interventions, supported by data-driven management, resulted in measurable declines in pending cases and improved efficiency in case disposal. A notable innovation during the reporting period was the roll-out of Rapid Results Initiatives (RRI) in selected priority areas. In the Family Division of the High Court, RRIs accelerated the hearing and determination of matters affecting children, ensuring that their best interests were safeguarded without undue delay. Similar initiatives were extended to commercial and tax cases, where timely decisions are critical for business confidence and revenue stability, as well as to public interest cases requiring urgent resolution. These focused efforts showcased the Judiciary’s commitment to delivering impactful outcomes within compressed timelines, while also relieving systemic pressure on the dockets. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE In parallel, the Judiciary scaled up the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, anchored in the Constitution and the STAJ Blueprint, as a complementary pathway to justice. Alternative Justice Systems (AJS) and Court-Annexed Mediation grew significantly during the reporting period, recording high settlement rates and providing timely, less adversarial, and more affordable outcomes. These platforms promoted reconciliation, restored relationships, and allowed parties to reach mutually acceptable solutions outside the traditional adversarial process. Together, the combined strategies of backlog clearance, RRIs, ADR, and AJS demonstrated the Judiciary’s resolve to widen access to justice, reduce undue delays, and entrench a culture of efficiency and responsiveness in the justice system. 1.2.8 Efficiency and Prudent Resource Utilisation Operational efficiency was strengthened through prudent resource mobilisation and effective utilisation of available resources. The Judiciary advanced financial autonomy through the operationalisation of the Judiciary Fund and the adoption of programme-based budgeting, which together enhanced accountability while ensuring that resources were channelled to priority areas such as infrastructure, ICT, and service delivery. To reinforce transparency in financial management, the Judiciary adopted the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Jumuika system, a digital platform designed to enhance efficiency in human resource, financial, and procurement processes. By integrating planning, budgeting, and expenditure tracking into a unified system, Jumuika promotes real-time monitoring, reduces leakages, and strengthens institutional safeguards against inefficiencies. These innovations demonstrate the Judiciary’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of fiscal responsibility in line with its constitutional mandate. 1.2.9 Prison Decongestion and Restorative Justice In collaboration with correctional services and other justice sector partners, the Judiciary advanced targeted measures to address prison overcrowding and promote more humane approaches to justice. Recognising that excessive reliance on custodial sentences and pre-trial detention undermines rehabilitation and strains correctional facilities, the Judiciary pursued innovative alternatives that balance accountability with social reintegration. Key interventions included the scaling up of plea-bargaining frameworks, which enabled accused persons to take responsibility while reducing the length and cost of trials. Diversion programmes, particularly for petty offences and cases involving children, redirected matters away from formal prosecution towards community-based solutions that emphasise rehabilitation over punishment. In addition, the adoption of non-custodial and community-based sanctions provided courts with practical tools to im pose proportionate penalties while reducing congestion in prisons. To strengthen the sustainability of these interventions, the Judiciary, working with the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the National Crime Research Centre (NCRC), advanced the development of a Balanced Court Fines Policy for Petty Offenders. The policy seeks to guide courts in issuing fines that are fair, consistent, and commensurate with offences, while taking into account the socio-economic circumstances of offenders. This approach mitigates the cycle of imprisonment for those unable to pay disproportionately high fines, while still holding offenders accountable within the law. Together, these initiatives reflect a deliberate shift towards restorative justice, where emphas is is placed on repairing harm, addressing root causes of offending, and reintegrating offenders as productive members of society. By reducing the burden on prisons, strengthening fairness in sentencing, and promoting reconciliation, the Judiciary not only improved efficiency in the administration of justice but also safeguarded the dignity of those in conflict with the law. 1.2.10 Bail and Bond Practices The Judiciary streamlined bail and bond practices through the application of the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, which provide clear standards for judicial officers when determining release conditions. The guidelines promote fairness and consistency across courts, ensuring that decisions are not arbitrary but grounded in transparent criteria. They also safeguard constitutional rights by reducing unnecessary pre- trial detention, while at the same time balancing considerations of public safety, victim concerns, and the risk of absconding. During the reporting period, courts undertook continuous sensitisation of judicial officers, prosecutors, and defence counsel on the proper application of the guidelines. Monitoring mechanisms were also strengthened under NCAJ to track compliance and assess emerging trends. These measures reinforced the principle that bail and bond are instruments of justice, not punishment while enhancing accountability and building public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. The National Crime Research Centre also published the result of a study on the level of satisfaction with the bail and bond policy guidelines, the challenges and gaps around the guidelines as well as the impact of the policy. Among its key recommendations is the revision of the policy guidelines, clarification and declassification of crimes and offenses and the enactment of a Bail and Bond Act enforceable beyond the provisions of the policy. 1.2.11 Judiciary Infrastructure and Expanded Judicial Footprint The Judiciary continued to prioritise the expansion of its infrastructure and institutional footprint as a cornerstone of access to justice. During the reporting period, new court facilities were constructed and operationalised across several counties, extending both superior and subordinate courts to regions that had previously been underserved. The establishment of additional Magistrates’ Courts and the rapid rollout of Small Claims Courts further enhanced proximity to justice, particularly for rural communities and small-scale economic actors. This expansion is guided by the principle of bringing justice closer to the people, reducing the time, cost, and logistical barriers that citizens face in accessing courts. It also reinforces institutional presence nationwide, ensuring that the Judiciary is visible and accessible in every county. Beyond physical construction, the infrastructure programme includes the modernisation of existing facilities to meet evolving standards of safety, inclusivity, and digital-readiness, thereby aligning the Judiciary’s physical growth with its broader transformation under the STAJ Blueprint. Through the Mahakama Popote Guidelines for the Magistrates’ Courts, Kadhis’ Courts, and Small Claims Courts which were finalized and launched during the reporting year, the Judiciary continued to expand the Mahakhama Popote initiative which enables the institution to leverage technology to allow judicial officers to handle cases regardless of the court station in which the case was filed, thereby making use of available human capital more efficiently. 1.2.12 Human Resource Optimisation The Judiciary continued to invest deliberately in its most valuable resource, its people, through a range of initiatives aimed at building a skilled, adaptable, and motivated workforce. Redeployment and re-skilling programmes ensured that human resources were aligned to areas of greatest need, while also equipping staff with the competencies required in a rapidly digitising justice environment. Structured pathways for career progression and promotions provided incentives for performance and professional growth, reinforcing morale and institutional loyalty. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8088 8088 Capacity-building was anchored in the Kenya Judiciary Academy which rolled out targeted training on emerging areas such as digital systems, gender justice, bail and bond administration, case management, and integrity frameworks. Continuous professional development programmes also enhanced judicial officers’ and staff members’ ability to adapt to reforms under the STAJ Blueprint. Together, these initiatives promoted not only technical proficiency but also a culture of excellence, accountability, and service orientation across the institution. 1.2.13 Employee Assistance and Wellness The Judiciary recognised staff well-being as central to STAJ’s outcome of building an “inspired team of Judges, Judicial Officers, and Judiciary staff,” and strengthened a comprehensive Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) offering psychosocial support, counselling, and health-promotion services. Wellness was mainstreamed through Judges’ Wellness Days including retreats convened by the Kenya Judges Welfare Association and regional staff wellness activities at court stations nationwide, featuring practical activities such as physical exercise, meditation, medical check-ups, and talks on mental health, workplace safety, and spiritual wellness. A national wellness calendar was institutionalised and aligned to the International Day for Judicial Well-Being, declared by the UN General Assembly on March 4, 2025 and observed on July 25, 2025. These initiatives embed a preventive, dignity-affirming approach to occupational health, directly linking staff resilience to effective, people-centred service delivery. 1.2.14 Policy Development In the year under review, the Judicial Service Commission approved seventeen key policies and resources designed to strengthen judicial operations, governance, and modernisation. These included practical tools such as the Bench Book on Wildlife, Forest and Fisheries Crimes, the Court Administrators Handbook and Court Process Servers Handbook, as well as the Curriculum for Training Court Administrators and the Decision Making and Judgment Writing Bench Book. Collectively, these resources standardised practice, enhanced professionalism, and built capacity across the institution. To reinforce ethical leadership, the JSC approved a Leadership and Integrity Code for Members of the Commission, alongside an Anti- Corruption Policy, which together provide a stronger framework for accountability and transparent governance in the Commission. The Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Strategy institutionalised structured dialogue with partners and the public, strengthening trust and reinforcing the Judiciary’s openness. A major highlight was the approval of seven ICT-related policies, covering ICT security, systems development and management, database and network administration, leasing of ICT equipment, end-user devices, and digitisation of records. Together, these policies accelerated the transition to fully digital operations, enhanced the security of digital platforms, and fortified the Judiciary’s capacity to modernise its systems sustainably. In further support of staff welfare, the Commission also approved the proposed Judiciary Car Loan Scheme Fund Regulations and the proposed Judiciary Mortgage Scheme Fund Regulations which are to be gazetted under the hand of the Cabinet Secretary to the National Treasury. Policies and resources approved by the JSC during FY 2024/2025 Policy / Regulation Focus Area Intended Impact Bench Book on Wildlife, Forest and Fisheries Crimes Environmental and natural resource justice Provides judicial officers with reference material to standardise decisions on environmental and wildlife- related offences. Court Administrators Handbook Court administration Enhances professionalism and efficiency in the management of court stations. Curriculum for Training Court Administrators Capacity building Establishes structured training for administrators to strengthen governance and service delivery. Court Process Servers Handbook Court processes Standardises service of court documents, improving reliability and accountability. Decision Making and Judgment Writing Bench Book Judicial practice Improves quality, clarity, and consistency in judgments and rulings. Leadership and Integrity Code for Members of the Judicial Service Commission Governance and ethics Reinforces ethical leadership, accountability, and public trust in the JSC. Judicial Service Commission Anti- Corruption Policy Integrity Establishes safeguards against corruption and promotes a culture of transparency. JSC Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Strategy Partnerships and communication Institutionalises structured engagement with partners and the public to enhance trust. Policy on ICT Security ICT governance Secures Judiciary digital platforms against breaches and data risks. Policy on Systems Development and Management ICT systems Provides standards for developing and maintaining Judiciary ICT systems. Policy on Systems and Database Administration ICT systems Strengthens efficiency, integrity, and oversight of Judiciary databases. Policy on Network Administration ICT infrastructure Improves management and security of Judiciary networks nationwide. Policy on Leasing of ICT Equipment ICT infrastructure Streamlines ICT procurement and ensures cost-effective technology adoption. Policy on End User Computing Devices ICT access Standardises provision and use of devices for Judiciary officers and staff. Policy on Digitisation of Records ICT transformation Facilitates the transition to paperless operations and secure digital records. Judiciary Car Loan Scheme Fund Regulations, 2025 Staff welfare Expands access to affordable car loans for Judiciary officers and staff. Judiciary Mortgage Scheme Fund Regulations, 2025 Staff welfare Provides affordable mortgage financing to enhance staff stability and welfare. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE 1.2.15 Strategy Evaluation In parallel, the Judiciary undertook an evaluation of its 2019 – 2023 Strategic Plan which revealed an overall achievement rate of 57%. This progress highlighted significant reforms achieved but also pointed to areas requiring strengthened policy direction and institutional reforms. The evaluation recommended harmonising policy, planning, and resource allocation to ensure that strategic objectives translate into meaningful results. It also underscored the need to entrench people- centred service delivery, consistent with the STAJ Blueprint, and to sustain reform momentum. To reinforce accountability and continuous improvement, the evaluation further called for the establishment of a centralised monitoring and evaluation system that will enable consistent performance tracking across all levels of the Judiciary. This would provide a structured basis for measuring progress, learning from implementation, and driving evidence-based reforms that deepen access to justice. 1.2.16 Partnerships and Cooperative Dialogue The Judiciary continued to incorporate cooperative dialogue into its strategic implementation framework, recognising that sustainable justice reforms and people-centred outcomes are only achievable through deliberate collaboration and broad-based partnerships. By engaging state institutions, professional bodies, civil society, development partners, and community actors, the Judiciary created platforms for mutual learning, shared responsibility, and joint problem-solving. These partnerships facilitated the cross-pollination of ideas and the scaling of innovations that have directly improved the delivery of justice, particularly for marginalised and vulnerable populations. They also enhanced institutional resilience by drawing on diverse expertise, resources, and perspectives, ensuring that reforms remain inclusive, evidence-driven, and responsive to the evolving needs of society. Engagement with National Justice Stakeholders The Judiciary continued to engage stakeholders through platforms such as Judiciary Dialogue Days, Court Users Committees (CUCs), and structured engagements with the National Treasury and publishers like Longhorn, Law Africa and Kenya Law. These engagements have not only mobilised critical resources such as support for digital resources in remote courts but also strengthened stakeholder ownership of institutional reforms. The Judiciary also held engagements with the leadership of the Law Society of Kenya on issues affecting justice delivery, including e-filing, virtual sessions, case backlog and court infrastructure. Both parties recognised the importance of structured regular engagements, with the LSK pledging support in addressing these challenges. In addition, the Judiciary held structured engagements with the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee of the National Assembly, focusing primarily on law reform and enhanced budget allocation to strengthen judicial operations. During these discussions, the Judiciary emphasised the need for adequate funding to support priority areas such as automation and digitisation, expansion of court infrastructure, and recruitment of judicial officers. Engagements with Development Partners The Judiciary convened the Annual Judiciary Development Partners Roundtable, reaffirming its commitment to structured dialogue with bilateral and multilateral partners, civil society, and philanthropic organisations. The meeting underscored the importance of sustained collaboration in institution-building, recognising that effective partnerships are central to positioning the Judiciary as a reliable anchor for dispute resolution, the rule of law, and constitutionalism. At the Roundtable, the Judiciary presented progress achieved under its reform agenda and outlined priority areas requiring support, particularly in the realms of digitisation, infrastructure expansion, backlog reduction, gender justice, and staff capacity-building. Partners were called upon to align their technical and financial support with the STAJ Blueprint, which envisions a people- centred justice system that is accessible, efficient, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of all Kenyans. Beyond financial contributions, development partners provided critical knowledge capital, innovation, and comparative perspectives that enriched the Judiciary’s reform journey. The Roundtable also served as a platform for mutual accountability, where progress was reviewed, challenges candidly discussed, and commitments renewed to strengthen justice delivery. This collaborative approach continues to ensure that reform initiatives are not only well-resourced but also aligned with global best practices and the lived realities of Kenyan citizens. Engagements with the Civil Society and Thought-Leaders The Judiciary continued to demonstrate openness to diverse voices in shaping legal discourse by hosting engagements with civil society organisations, youth networks, and global thought leaders. The Refugee Consortium of Kenya was recognised for its work in promoting the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, particularly in advancing access to justice for marginalised and displaced communities. Similarly, the Judiciary commended Embellish, a network of young advocates, for its contributions to community service and its role in nurturing the next generation of legal professionals committed to justice and social transformation. In parallel, the Judiciary held structured discussions with the Ford Global Fellows, focusing on the role of the Rule of Law, constitutionalism, and judicial precedent in tackling inequality and promoting inclusion. These exchanges highlighted the Judiciary’s position as a safeguard of human dignity and its role in ensuring that constitutional guarantees translate into meaningful protection for vulnerable groups. By engaging with such diverse actors, from grassroots advocates to international fellows, the Judiciary enriched its reform agenda with innovative ideas, intergenerational perspectives, and global best practices. These partnerships underscore the institution’s commitment to building a justice system that is not only legally sound but also socially responsive and anchored in the lived realities of the people it serves. 1.3 EXCELLENCE, INNOVATION AND RECOGNITION The Judiciary continued to position itself as a centre of excellence by fostering innovation, nurturing talent, and promoting integrity across the justice sector. This commitment was reflected not only in broad institutional reforms but also in the personal initiatives and achievements of judicial officers and staff who embody the Judiciary’s values of professionalism, service, and accountability. 1.3.1. Judicial Diplomacy and Benchmarking: The Kenya Judiciary as a Center of Excellence The Judiciary leveraged diplomacy and international benchmarking as tools for knowledge exchange, peer learning, and institutional strengthening. This high-level judicial diplomacy also reinforced the Kenya Judiciary’s role as a hub for knowledge exchange and collaboration in judicial practice and its profile as a center of excellence in global justice networks. Engagements with counterparts from Uganda, Zanzibar, India, Azerbaijan, Germany, Zambia, and China provided a platform to reflect on common challenges and share innovations in areas such as Alternative Dispute Resolution, gender justice, climate change litigation, the integration of 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8090 8090 “We are glad that we are developing cooperation between our two countries at the judicial level. This visit will serve as an opportunity for mutual learning, deepening our mutual cooperation in judicial sphere and strengthen judicial systems through shared experiences and knowledge exchange.” Azerbaijan Chief Justice Inam Karimov during a luncheon hosted by Chief Justice Martha Koome and the Senior Counsel Bar Artificial Intelligence into legal systems, and institutional performance management. These engagements deepened the Judiciary’s comparative insights and positioned Kenya as a continental and global reference point for reform. The Judiciary hosted the King and Queen of the Netherlands, reaffirming shared commitments to human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law. Bilateral dialogues with the Chief Justices of Zambia and Uganda strengthened inter-jurisdictional cooperation and opened avenues for sustained collaboration in navigating emerging issues such as transnational crime, cross-border disputes, and climate justice. Notably, the visit by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany to the Court of Appeal’s Virtual Court Command Centre showcased Kenya’s pioneering leadership in digitised justice delivery, affirming the Judiciary’s position as a continental reference point for technology-enabled access to justice. The Judiciary also hosted a delegation from Colombia, led by the Vice President and Minister of Equality and Equity, who visited Kenya from th to 29 th November 2024. The objectives were to strengthen judicial collaboration and partnership between the judiciaries of Kenya and Colombia, facilitate reciprocal high-level engagements following prior visits, and exchange knowledge on gender equality, equity, and the adjudication of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) cases. A delegation from the Judiciary of Zanzibar also visited to share lessons and best practices on ADR, performance management, gender justice, and climate justice, holding structured engagements which highlighted replicable innovations under the Judicial Performance Improvement Project (JPIP), which are being adapted to local contexts to strengthen efficiency. Additionally, Judges of the Supreme Court of India, accompanied by the Commonwealth Asia team, held structured dialogues exploring areas of cooperation and partnership in strengthening justice systems. Through these engagements which yielded practical outcomes for Kenya’s Judiciary, the Judiciary positioned itself not only as a beneficiary of global best practices, but also as an active contributor to international discourse on justice transformation. Lessons from comparative jurisdictions informed refinements in case management strategies, reinforced the Judiciary’s approach to Court-Annexed Mediation and AJS frameworks, and inspired the adoption of tools for performance tracking and accountability. By combining diplomacy with practical benchmarking, the Judiciary has enriched its reform agenda, secured legitimacy for its innovations, and built partnerships that will sustain its progress in an evolving legal landscape. March 10, 2025: Judges of the Supreme Court of Kenya engage with Justices of the Supreme Court of India at the Supreme Court Library, exploring opportunities for cooperation and exchange of judicial best practices. 1.3.2. Individual Innovation & Recognition Individual accolades further reflected the culture of excellence and depth of talent within the institution. Hon Justice John Chigiti launched his book The Diary Mentorship for Young Lawyers, a practical guide on ethics, courtroom practice, and professional growth, contributing to the mentorship of the next generation of lawyers. Hon Lady Justice Asenath Ongeri unveiled The Making of a Judge during the High Court’s Human Rights Summit, offering a reflective account of her judicial journey and insights on resilience, service, and leadership within the Bench. Meanwhile, Hon Jane Kamau, Principal Magistrate at the Kajiado Law Courts, was recognised as Judicial Officer of the Year at the Nairobi Legal Awards for her pioneering contributions in advancing Alternative Justice Systems and improving access to justice at the grassroots. Environment and Land Court Judge Oguttu Mboya was also recognized as the 2024 Judge of the Year Award by the Nairobi Legal Awards. Additionally, a total of twenty-one judges, judicial officers and staff received various National Honours during the Jamhuri Day celebrations on December 12, 2024. Together, these institutional milestones and individual achievements illustrate the Judiciary’s pursuit of excellence, innovation, and integrity, affirming its central role in building a justice system that inspires public trust and sets a benchmark within and beyond Kenya. Judiciary Employees who received National Honours & Awards during Jamhuri Day Celebrations on December 12, 2024 Award Recipient Designation Elder of the Order of the Golden Heart (EGH) Hon Lady Justice Philomena Mbete Mwilu Deputy Chief Justice & Vice President of the Supreme Court of Kenya Chief of the Order of the Burning Spear (CBS) Hon Winfridah B. Mokaya Chief Registrar of the Judiciary Elder of the Order of the Burning Spear (EBS) Hon Mr Justice John Mativo Judge, Court of Appeal Hon Lady Justice Pauline Nyamweya Judge, Court of Appeal Hon Mr Justice Byram Ongaya Principal Judge, ELRC 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE “Service to society should not be optional, it should be at the core of your legal practice. You must be prepared to use your knowledge and skills as a lawyer to serve the society, promote public good, and protect the vulnerable members of the society including women, children, the poor, elderly, and persons with disabilities,” Chief Justice Martha Koome during the admission of new advocates on March 6, 2025 Ms. Rose Wachuka Macharia Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief Justice Moran of the Order of the Burning Spear (MBS) Hon Lady Justice Abigail Mshila Judge, High Court Hon Lady Justice Maureen Onyango Judge, ELRC Hon Justice Antony Ombwayo Judge, ELC Hon Lady Justice Esther Maina Judge, High Court Hon Justice Alfred Mabeya Judge, High Court Hon Everlyne Olwande Chief Magistrate & Commissioner, JSC Hon Caroline Kabucho Registrar, Magistrates Courts Hon Letizia Wachira Registrar, Supreme Court Order of The Grand Warrior of Kenya (OGW) Hon Thomas Nzyoki Chief Magistrate Hon Monicah Kivuti (Posthumous) Principal Magistrate Hon Benard Kasavuli Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court Dr Masha Baraza Legal Counsel, Office of the Deputy Chief Justice Head of State Commendation (HSC) Mr. Omagwa Kepha Achuka Court Administrator Ms. Kamau Miriam Wanini Court Administrator 1.4 ADMISSIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OATHS OF OFFICE During the reporting year, the Judiciary sustained its constitutional role in regulating entry and practice within the legal profession while embedding digital efficiency in its administrative processes. A total of 1,984 advocates were admitted to the bar, strengthening the pool of legal practitioners available to serve the justice system. Reflecting the Judiciary’s commitment to digital transformation, 18,634 digital annual practising certificates were issued through automated platforms, reducing delays, improving accountability, and streamlining regulatory oversight. To further expand professional capacity, 856 advocates were appointed as Commissioners for Oaths and 738 as Notaries Public, enabling wider access to essential legal services across the country. Beyond the legal profession, the Chief Justice and the Chief Registrar presided over the administration of the Oath of Office to individuals appointed to various constitutional and statutory offices, reaffirming the Judiciary’s role as custodian of constitutional order and a guarantor of lawful authority. These milestones demonstrate the Judiciary’s pivotal role in strengthening the legal profession, safeguarding constitutionalism, and entrenching digital efficiency in professional regulation. In line with its constitutional mandate to administer oaths of office, the Judiciary presided over the assumption of office of Hon Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya. The ceremony, conducted by the Chief Justice, reaffirmed the Judiciary’s central role in upholding constitutional order and ensuring the smooth transition of executive authority. By administering this oath, the Judiciary not only safeguarded the integrity of the country’s democratic processes but also reinforced public confidence in the constitutional framework governing leadership and succession. 1.5 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY In its ongoing commitment to social responsibility and nation-building, the Judiciary undertook targeted CSR programmes aimed at supporting vulnerable groups and fostering social equity and healing. These initiatives reinforced the Judiciary’s identity not only as a dispenser of justice but also as an institution attuned to the lived realities of the communities it serves. During the reporting year, outreach activities were conducted across different regions. At Machao Children’s Home and the Makueni Remand Prison, assorted goods were donated, strengthening bonds of compassion with both children and inmates. In Mukuru Kayaba informal settlement, judges and staff distributed foodstuffs for Iftar during Ramadhan, ensuring that vulnerable residents could participate in the sacred observance with dignity. A visit to Mama Ibado Charity in Isiolo saw donations of food and clothing, while at Shimo La Tewa Prison, the Judiciary provided supplies and held engagements with inmates to underscore the importance of dignity and rehabilitation in correctional facilities. These acts of solidarity underscored the Judiciary’s human face, an institution that extends beyond the courtroom to touch lives directly, nurture inclusion, and contribute to the broader goal of social transformation in Kenya. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8092 8092 CHAPTER TWO: ACCESS TO JUSTICE INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Article 48 of the Constitution of Kenya, which guarantees every person the right to access justice, the Judiciary is mandated to eliminate barriers, simplify procedures, and make court services readily available to all. This chapter presents the initiatives undertaken to enhance access to justice, examines the transformative role of technology in the administration of justice and provides an analysis of court statistics. a. INITIATIVES TO ENHANCE ACCESS TO JUSTICE Guided by the Constitution, the Judiciary deepened its commitment to bringing justice closer to the people by expanding its physical footprint across the country. Over the reporting period, remarkable strides were made at every level of the court system, thereby removing barriers, enhancing accessibility, and ensuring that no Kenyan is left behind in the quest for justice i. Establishment of Courts and Sub- Registries A Court of Appeal sub-registry was operationalized in Garissa, thus providing litigants in the region with greater access to appellate services. The sub-registry in Garissa brings the total number of Court of Appeal sub-registries to seven. Other sub-registries have previously been established in Eldoret, Busia, Kisii, Meru, Malindi and Kakamega. The Isiolo High Court sub-registry was upgraded to a full High Court station while a new High Court was also established at Makadara Law Courts. This expansion brings the High Court to all the 47 counties with 47 High Court stations and Seven sub-registries. Five of the seven High Court sub- registries were operational in counties that do not host High Court stations namely, Elgeyo Marakwet, Lamu, Mandera, Samburu, and Wajir. At the Environment and Land Court in Milimani, an Appeals Division was established, raising the number of divisions to three, namely, the Land Division, the Environment and Planning Division, and the Appeals Division. In addition, two new sub-registries of the ELC were established in Bomet and Wajir. The ELC now has six sub-registries in Witu, Bomet, Kabarnet, Lamu, Lodwar, and Wajir. At the subordinate courts, six new Magistrates Courts were operationalized in Dagoretti, Kamwangi, Kendu Bay, Kombewa, Moiben, and Wamunyu, increasing the total number of Magistrates’ Courts stations in the country to 143. The rollout of Small Claims Courts also continued during the reporting period, with three new Small Claims Courts established at Dagoretti, Garissa and Voi Law Courts. This brings the total number of operational Small Claims Courts across the country to 40, with one sub-registry at Makueni Law Courts. Further, the Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal transitioned to the Judiciary, bringing the total number of tribunals operating under the Judiciary to 27. Table 2.1.1 illustrates the establishment of courts and sub-registries and the transition of Tribunals during the reporting period. Establishment of courts and sub- registries and transition of Tribunals Court FY 2023/24 Established in FY 2024/25 Total Stations Sub- registries Stations Sub- registries Stations Sub-registries Supreme Court 1 2 - - 1 2 Court of Appeal 6 6 - 1 6 7 High Court 46 7 1 1 47 7 ELRC 10 11 - - 10 11 ELC 40 3 - 2 40 5 Magistrates Court 137 - 6 - 143 - Kadhis Court 47 - - - 47 - Small Claims Court 37 1 3 - 40 - Tribunals (Transited to the Judiciary) 26 3 1 - 27 3 ii. Court Circuits Circuits are need-based court sessions designed to expedite the resolution of disputes and bring justice closer to the people. This is achieved by temporarily deploying Judges and judicial officers to specific court stations away from their ordinary posting. The Judiciary carried out 79 circuits where 6,050 cases were resolved, as illustrated in Table 2.1.2. Court circuits per court level Court No. of Court Circuits Cases Resolved Court of Appeal 19 162 High Court 22 1,987 ELRC 7 211 ELC 4 2,570 Tribunals 27 1,120 Total 79 6,050 iii. Mobile Courts During the year, 59 mobile courts were in operation, registering 7,872 new cases and successfully resolving 6,751. Through these mobile courts, the Judiciary brought justice closer to marginalized and vulnerable communities in line with the STAJ Blueprint, reaching populations that would otherwise have to travel long distances or navigate difficult terrain to access the nearest court. iv. Strengthening Tribunals' Shared Services The Judiciary launched shared services for Tribunals in Nairobi and Kisumu Counties to enhance access to justice. This initiative seeks to streamline administrative processes, optimize resource allocation, and standardize service delivery by pooling resources and leveraging economies of scale. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE The shared services provide registry support to clients across all tribunals in the region and facilitates circuit sittings. These services include shared courtrooms, registries, chambers, digital hubs, archives, and human resources. The initiative is expected to enhance efficiency, improve accessibility, and reinforce the Judiciary’s commitment to expanding access to justice. Between the launch of the Kisumu shared services on May 12, 2025 and the end of the financial year on June 30, 2025, more than 150 cases were registered, and 56 individuals were assisted to have their cases heard through the digital hub. v. Mahakama Popote Mahakama Popote is an innovation designed to enhance efficiency and equitable access to justice by redistributing workload among Judicial Officers, leveraging on technology, thus reducing case backlog. It enables Judicial Officers in courts with lower caseloads to support busier courts through virtual platforms and e- filing, eliminating the need for physical transfers. During the year, the initiative was implemented to assist with cases in high-volume courts including Milimani Commercial Courts, Thika Kadhis Court, Mombasa Law Courts and Mombasa Kadhis Court. The initiative was also deployed to resolve cases in Small Claims Courts in Milimani, Eldoret, Kisumu, Kakamega and Thika. A total of 19,089 cases identified in these courts were distributed to Judicial Officers in other court stations with lower caseloads, out of which 14,240 were resolved. To guide and strengthen its implementation, the Mahakama Popote Guidelines were launched. These guidelines set out clear and transparent case assignment procedures, incorporating case complexity assessments and regular workload reviews to ensure fairness and consistency in distribution. vi. Service Weeks From time to time, different courts conduct service weeks which entail concentration and focus of resources over a specified period of time to clear cases that are considered backlog. Through this initiative, High Court heard and determined 2,507 cases while Tribunals determined 1,723 cases. These reduced the case backlog, increased access to justice, and ensured quick resolution of matters by leveraging technology, as all the matters under Rapid results Initiative (RRI) were conducted virtually. As is tradition, the National Service Month on children’s matters was held in the month of November 2024, targeting matters that had remained unresolved for over six months. A total of 521 cases were resolved. Of the cases resolved, 33 per cent were civil cases while 67 per cent were cases involving children in conflict with the law. In addition, the Judiciary held a National Succession Service Week in May 2025, targeting probate and administration cases. Table 2.1.3 highlights the outcome of service weeks held across the country per court level. Service Weeks per Court Court No. of Service Weeks Cases Heard Cases Resolved High Court 4 2,507 2,507 ELC 2 44 10 Tribunals 10 1,723 1,723 CAM 1 35 18 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8094 8094 vii. Prison Decongestion The Judiciary launched a Rapid Results Initiative (RRI) to decongest prisons in the Nairobi region. Through this initiative, 3,157 matters were reviewed, resulting in inmates being placed on probation, assigned Community Service Orders, having their sentences reduced, or being released. The RRI seeks to achieve a sustainable prison population that aligns with the designated capacity of correctional facilities, while promoting fairness, dignity, and efficiency in the administration of justice. viii. Pro-Bono Scheme To enhance access to justice for indigent persons, the Judiciary allocated KSh 82.1 million to support pro bono legal services across courts. These funds were applied to settle claims from advocates who rendered such services, as shown in Table 2.1.4. The Judiciary acknowledges that this budget is inadequate to meet outstanding fees payable to advocates who have offered these crucial services to indigent litigants, and calls on the National Assembly to provide additional funding to support this scheme. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE With the recent operationalization of the National Legal Aid Service under the Office of the Attorney General, the Judiciary now plans to transition the administration of pro bono services to this new entity, ensuring a more structured and sustainable framework for legal aid. Distribution of Pro bono Funds Court Amount (KSh) Court of Appeal 4,300,000 High Court 26,589,970 Magistrates Courts 50,655,000 Tribunals 600,000 Total 82,144,970 ix. Simplification of Court Procedures The Judiciary is committed to enhancing access to justice by simplifying court procedures and providing user-friendly resources that demystify complex legal processes. In line with this commitment, a range of policy documents, manuals, and guides were developed with the overarching goal of improving efficiency, transparency, and user experience across all levels. Resource Objective Supreme Court of Kenya Self- Representing Litigant E-Guide To empower self-representing litigants by guiding them through filing and appearance procedures with clear, step-by-step instructions. The objective is to reduce procedural barriers for self- representing litigants and ensure they can navigate the court effectively. Court of Appeal Electronic Hearings and Case Management Guides A suite of tools, including the Court of Appeal Automation Guide, Service of Process Guide, Case Management Guide, and the CoA Indexing Guide, were developed to standardise documentation and enhance the efficiency of electronic hearings and case tracking. For administrative support, the Registrar’s Practice Note and the Request for Transcription Guide were also introduced to ensure consistency, improve caseflow management, and facilitate seamless adoption of digital processes within the Court of Appeal. Guidelines on the Conduct of Service Weeks, Circuits, and Part-Heard Cases at the High Court To standardize the planning, execution, and reporting of these activities, thereby promoting uniformity, consistency, and efficiency across High Court operations. High Court Information Handbook To provide the public with accessible information about the High Court’s role, functions, and procedures, with the objective of fostering transparency and public awareness. Employment and Labour Relations Court Registry Operations Manual To standardize processes, enhance efficiency, and improve the overall customer experience. Conciliation Manual To provide structured guidelines for conciliation, fostering amicable settlements and helping to reduce the case backlog. ELC Guide to Environmental and Land Justice in Kenya To provide clear guidance on land and environmental justice processes, with the aim of raising public awareness and enhancing access to specialized justice in these critical areas. Small Claims Court Registry Manual To simplify and standardize procedures in Small Claims Courts, with the goal of making justice more accessible, efficient, and cost-effective for court users. Tribunals Registry Manual To standardize registry procedures across tribunals to ensure consistency, efficiency, and clarity in service delivery. Court-Annexed Mediation Private Mediation Guidelines To guide litigants in filing for mediation services before commencing formal court proceedings, to promote alternative dispute resolution, encourage amicable settlements, and ease the burden of caseloads on the courts. x. Strengthening Access to Justice through Court Annexed Mediation and Alternative Justice Systems The Judiciary has actively engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to expand access to justice through the adoption of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as Court-Annexed Mediation and Alternative Justice Systems (AJS). These approaches are fostering a more inclusive, efficient, and responsive legal framework that better meets the needs of all court users. Court Annexed Mediation Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) was introduced to ease case backlog, in line with Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution, which requires the promotion of alternative forms of dispute resolution, including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration, and traditional mechanisms. 14 new Court Annexed Mediation registries were established in Isiolo, Kilgoris, Marsabit, Kamwangi, Olkalou, Githunguri, Ruiru, Kapenguria, Kakuma, Lodwar, Lokichar, Lokitang, Kwale, and Msambweni Law Courts. This expansion brought the total number of mediation registries to 82, covering 42 counties. Plans are underway to operationalize mediation registries in the remaining five counties namely Lamu, Mandera, Moyale, Samburu, and Wajir, moving the Judiciary closer to nationwide coverage. Alternative Justice Systems Through its multi-stakeholder committee, the Judiciary advanced the implementation of the Alternative Justice Systems (AJS) Policy by prioritizing training, public awareness, and county-level action plans. AJS County Action Plans were launched in six counties namely Narok, Uasin Gishu, Kisumu, Trans Nzoia, Isiolo, and Marsabit. These plans integrate AJS policy into county governance by engaging diverse community groups. Special emphasis was placed on inclusivity and gender equity within traditional justice systems, including addressing unfair practices and promoting the participation of women in decision-making processes. Another key milestone was the training and capacity building of 600 AJS stakeholders including legal professionals, community leaders, and social justice advocates, equipping them to serve as AJS champions and drive policy implementation within their communities. These sessions also bridged the gap between policy and practice, ensuring that AJS principles are meaningfully applied on the ground. A total of 677 cases were resolved through AJS in the counties with County Action Plans, where the Judiciary is actively monitoring referrals with a success rate of 96%. Matters referred and resolved through AJS are depicted in Figure 2.1.1 below. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8096 8096 Figure a.1: Cases referred to AJS in six counties In Eldoret, 38 cases were resolved through autonomous AJS mechanisms while 27 cases were resolved through Third Party mechanisms. Kajiado resolved 189 cases through autonomous AJS mechanisms while 3 cases were resolved through the court referral mechanism. In Gichugu, 62 cases were resolved through court referrals to autonomous AJS mechanisms while Narok resolved 5 cases through court annexed mechanisms Table a.1: AJS Case resolution in select courts County Autonomous AJS Mechanism Court Referral Mechanism Third Party Mechanism Eldoret 38 - 27 Kajiado 189 3 - Gichugu 62 - - Narok - 5 - b. DEVELOPMENT OF COURT INFRASTRUCTURE The Judiciary is steadfast in advancing, renovating, and maintaining its infrastructure to enhance the quality of court facilities and bring justice closer to the people. By creating secure, dignified, and user-friendly spaces, the Judiciary ensures that both court users and staff experience an environment that upholds respect, fairness, and confidence in the justice system i. Construction Projects Construction works progressed in 13 locations namely Othaya, Eldoret, Kwale, Takaba, Kandara, Meru, Githongo, Mandera, Mukurweini, Habasweini, Lodwar, Bomet, and Kiambu. Two projects were successfully completed namely the Marimanti Law Courts, designed with inclusive amenities such as a lactation room and disability access, and the Dagoretti Law Courts. However, the planned construction of courts at Mihango and Kasarani could not proceed due to budgetary constraints. ii. Refurbishment Projects The Judiciary made significant progress in refurbishing court facilities, with a focus on structural safety and compliance with occupational safety, health, environmental, and accessibility requirements. Notable achievements included the installation of a new access ramp at Murang’a Law Courts to enhance accessibility and the completion of modern ablution blocks at Bungoma, Loitoktok, and Thika Law Courts, greatly improving sanitation while incorporating disability-friendly features. Similarly, tribunals carried out targeted refurbishments at the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, the Tax Appeals Tribunal, and other shared office spaces, improving both functionality and staff wellbeing. iii. Solar Projects In advancing its commitment to climate action and green energy, the Judiciary continued the installation of solar PV systems with a threefold objective: reducing its carbon footprint, lowering operational costs, and ensuring reliable power to sustain the growing use of technology in the administration of justice, particularly in remote and underserved regions. During the year, solar installations were completed at nine court stations namely Etago, Kajiado, Kiambu, Kilgoris, Kyuso, Mwingi, Naivasha, Sirisia, and Tawa, bringing the total number of solar-powered stations to 42. c. LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE ACCESS TO JUSTICE The Judiciary continues to make steady progress in the automation of its operations, with projects targeting both court and administrative systems. These efforts aim to enhance the delivery of justice by improving efficiency, accountability, and service accessibility. i. Automation of Court Processes Court system automation focuses on digitising core judicial processes such as case filing, case tracking, and virtual hearings. Case Tracking System The Case Tracking System (CTS) automates registry operations namely; case registration, fee assessment, cause list preparation, court orders generation & performance reports, with support to online payments. This digital platform further allows judges and judicial officers to update and 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE track the status of the cases they handle with the ability to file resolutions at any given time. The system also provides real-time status information on the progress of all cases within the Judiciary. During financial year 2024/2025, the system was enhanced with the following features: a. Operationalization of the flip book Case Document Viewing Interface to make it easier for users to navigate and access case documents online, thereby enhancing efficiency and user experience. The key features include allowing filtering of documents by Case Party Type, filtering by Individual Case Party, listing of Case Parties by Type (such as appellants and respondents), a section on all documents generated and published by judges and judicial officers (such as court orders, rulings, and judgments), and documents uploaded by registry officers. The flip book also has a document preview area where the currently selected case document is displayed. b. Operationalization of the Exhibit Management, Securities Management and File Movement features to enhance efficiency, accountability, and transparency in the court and registry processes. The Exhibit Management feature enables courts to digitally log, track, and retrieve exhibits submitted during trials while the securities management feature allows real-time tracking of court-ordered securities such as cash bail and bonds. The file movement feature keeps track of physical case files enabling users to know the exact location of a file at any given time. c. Standardized Court Templates for the generation of court documents were adopted to assist the registries in the efficient generation of court documents being processed. All courts now operate the templates effectively. The transparency offered by CTS has, over the years, fostered trust in the legal system and empowered stakeholders with timely information. The system is currently fully operational across all court stations and tribunals. CTS user accounts grew by 128,930 to 206,990 by June 30, 2025 as shown in Figure 2.3.1. Out of the 128,930 new accounts created in the system during the year, 124,816 are held by individual users, 1,378 by law firms, 2,715 by organizations, and 21 by state entities. This demonstrates the diverse user base of the Case Tracking System, serving various stakeholders in Kenya's legal landscape. Cumulative user accounts on the Case Tracking System Electronic Filing System The Judiciary rolled out Electronic Filing (E-filing) in Nairobi in July 2020, later expanding it nationwide by March 2024. The system comprises an e-filing portal, public information kiosks, and validation of probate and administration matters, court orders, and receipts. E-Filing has significantly reduced the time spent by litigants, advocates and court users to present pleadings in registries. It has also reduced the paperwork, cost of litigation and attendant delays. A user-satisfaction survey conducted in May 2025 recorded a satisfaction rate of 61 per cent, as shown in Figure 2.3.2. This was a slight decline from 68 per cent in April 2023. Most dissatisfied respondents had concerns with infrastructure and capacity challenges following the national rollout. The Judiciary is addressing these challenges through infrastructure upgrades, investments in green power and sustained user support initiatives. User satisfaction with e-filing 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8098 8098 E-Judiciary Mobile App The Judiciary has developed and deployed the E-Judiciary Mobile App, a major step forward in realizing the STAJ vision of accessible and efficient justice. The app extends the Judiciary’s service delivery to mobile devices including smartphones, iPads, and tablets making it easier for the public to access judicial services anytime, anywhere. Integrated with the CTS and E-Filing, the app provides users with key services and information without the need to log in. It features eight major functions designed to enhance convenience, transparency, and accessibility for court users. By June 30, 2025, the app had been downloaded 1,726 times on Google Play Store and 51 times on the Apple Store, with numbers steadily growing as more people embrace this digital solution. Video Conferencing Services Video conferencing (VC) services have become increasingly integrated into court processes throughout the country, as shown in Figure 2.3.3. VC equipment was distributed to five courts namely Kibera High Court, Dagoretti Law Courts, Nyandarua High Court, Kwale High Court and Mombasa Kadhi’s Court. This equipment enhances access to remote hearings and reduces the need for physical appearances. Annual distribution of VC kits from FY 2019/2020 to FY 2024/2025 Transcription Services A Transcription Centre was established in October 2023 to address delays in typing court proceedings. To support this, an AI-powered Speech-to- Text system was adopted during the reporting period, automatically converting recorded court proceedings into text. This innovation reduces manual workload, improves accuracy, and significantly shortens the time taken to prepare official court records. The system is fully integrated with virtual courts and the Case Tracking System, making transcripts easier to manage, process, and access. It also allows both Judiciary staff and external stakeholders to request transcriptions seamlessly. A pilot implementation in key Nairobi courts including the High Court (Family and Civil Divisions), the ELRC, the ELC, the Commercial Courts, the Small Claims Court, the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, and the Tax Appeals Tribunal has already demonstrated faster turnaround times and more reliable transcripts, with 806 transcripts submitted. ii. Automation of Administrative Processes Aside from public-facing systems, the Judiciary also automated internal administrative processes through roll out of the Judiciary Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System, dubbed Jumuika, which is expected to revolutionize the way administrative functions are carried out within the Judiciary. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE In the first phase which commenced in June 2023, the system was deployed to automate human resources and payroll management, and was progressively deployed to project management, finance, accounting and supply chain management during the reporting period. Full deployment is anticipated during financial year 2025/2026 when the system will be expanded to Audit and Risk, Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), and Library modules. The Judiciary has also developed a Guest Management Mobile Application which streamlines check-in processes at the gates for staff and visitors, enhancing security and improving the overall visitor experience in court premises. The App strengthens security, eliminates manual check-in procedures, and ensures accurate visitor records. It also improves efficiency by making the check- in and check- out process faster and more convenient for guests. Through the system, the Judiciary can securely record visitor details, track the offices or directorates being visited, and manage increasing numbers of guests with ease. Ultimately, the JGM App enhances both security and service delivery while offering visitors a smoother, more professional experience. The system is deployed at the Supreme Court before the phased national roll-out. iii. ICT Infrastructure The ICT Infrastructure encompasses data center services, ICT equipment and software, communications network services and equipment and storage equipment, services and software. The Judiciary continued to strengthen its ICT infrastructure to improve the speed, reliability, and accessibility of justice services. a. Reliable Systems : Data center capacity was expanded to support faster processing of cases and ensure uninterrupted access to Judiciary digital platforms. b. ICT Equipment: Desktops, laptops, video conferencing screens, and digital recording equipment were provided to enhance efficiency and support technology-driven service delivery. At total of 650 equipment including desktops (201), laptops (439) and iPads (10) were procured. These investments are bridging the digital divide, ensuring that even Kenyans in remote areas can benefit from modern, technology-enabled justice. c. Improved Court Connectivity: Reliable internet connectivity is critical for delivering technology -driven justice. During the year, the Judiciary upgraded internet services in 41 law courts across the country, including Lodwar, Kapenguria Eldoret, Iten, Kapsabet, Molo Narok, Engineer, Makueni, Mwingi, Kisii Mombasa, Msambweni Malindi Garsen Law Courts, Voi, Garbatulla Kadhis Courts, Merti Kadhis Court, Isiolo, Meru, Chuka, Embu, Nyeri, Kerugoya, Kangema, Kiambu, Thika, Milimani, Supreme Court Building, Sports Disputes Tribunal, Kenya-Re th Floor Office, Mediation Offices – Reinsurance Plaza, Garissa, Wajir, Madiany, Konza Data Center, Bungoma, Busia, Kakamega and Vihiga Law Courts. In addition, eight more stations were connected for the first time including Dagoretti, Kamwangi, Moiben, Wamunyu, Kendubay, and Kitui County Law Courts. Also connected were the ELRC premises at the KSG Mombasa and ELC premises in Daima Towers in Eldoret. These additions bring the total number of connected courts and offices to 180 nationwide. With stronger and wider connectivity, more Kenyans can now benefit from services such as e-filing, virtual hearings, online payment systems, and real-time case tracking reducing delays and improving access to justice in both urban and remote areas. Most of the stations are connected via fiber which guarantees reliability of the internet services as per Figure 2.3.4. Status of internet connectivity iv. The Judiciary Cyber Space and Digital Assets Security As courts embrace digital transformation, protecting sensitive data and systems has become a top priority. Cyber threats such as hacking and cyber extortion continue to grow globally, and the Judiciary is taking proactive steps to safeguard platforms like the E-Filing System, Judiciary Financial Management Information System (JFMIS), and the Case Tracking System (CTS). During the reporting period, the Judiciary deployed measures to secure its digital assets to not only protect the Judiciary’s cyberspace but also reinforce public confidence in the integrity and security of Kenya’s digital justice systems. v. Judiciary Desks at Huduma Centres In February 2024, the Judiciary operationalised service desks in six Huduma Centres at Kibra, GPO, City Square, Makadara, Eastleigh, and Thika, to bring services closer to the people. These desks make it easier for citizens to access court services without having to travel to court stations. Services available include: 1. Case support: Guidance in filing new civil cases, submitting documents, and making case inquiries. 2. Court documents: Issuance of summons, notices, court orders, rulings, judgments, decrees, and certified proceedings. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8100 8100 3. E-filing assistance: Opening and recovering e-filing accounts, password resets, and navigation support through the Judiciary Public Information Kiosk. 4. Payments: Help with generating invoices and making payments for fines, cash bail, and court-ordered deposits. 5. Virtual court access: Providing links and support for attending hearings remotely. By integrating services into Huduma Centres, the Judiciary is reducing travel costs, cutting waiting times, and ensuring that justice services are more accessible, citizen-friendly, and efficient. The roll out of the desks to other Huduma Centers countrywide was put on hold pending further consultations with the Law Society and other key stakeholders. The number of visitors served at the various desks during the reporting period is given in Figure 2.3.5. Performance of Judiciary desks at Huduma Centers in Nairobi vi. Mahakama Digitization Programme One key strategic intervention to fully support electronic filing is the digitization of active historical court records and handwritten proceedings for use by Judges and Judicial Officers. To achieve this goal, the Mahakama Digitization Programme (MADIP) builds on the earlier Ajira initiative, aligning with STAJ goals to reduce the distance to court and improve the administration, as well as access to justice. By integrating digital technologies into court operations, MADIP has laid the foundation for a smarter, paperless, and people-centered justice system. Digitization of court records involves the conversion of court files from Manual to digital format and thereafter upload to the Case Tracking System. Digitization is reducing reliance on paper files, minimizing risks of file loss or tampering, and improving transparency. It is also laying the foundation for a smarter, paperless, and people-centered justice system where court users benefit from faster processing and more reliable services. Through MADIP, the Judiciary is building the backbone for future innovations, including artificial intelligence tools to further enhance decision- making and access to justice. Key achievements recorded under the programme during FY 2024/25 are; a. Digitized 322,295 court case files across 128 stations, representing 53 per cent of the targeted 611,580 files. b. Digitized 15,249 administrative records to streamline support functions. d. DISPUTE RESOLUTION THROUGH COURTS Courts remain the primary formal avenue through which litigants in Kenya seek trusted resolution of disputes. In FY 2024/25, the Judiciary sustained its commitment to enhancing case resolution, reducing case pendency, and tackling backlog across court stations nationwide. This section presents a detailed overview of the court-specific statistics, offering valuable insights into how individual courts are managing their caseloads. By examining trends across the superior courts, specialized courts, Magistrates’ Courts, these insights inform evidence-based decision- making and support ongoing efforts to enhance efficiency, and strengthen access to justice in line with the Judiciary’s STAJ agenda. i. Overall Statistics Caseload statistics provide an overview of the volume and nature of matters handled by the courts, encompassing data on filed, resolved, and pending cases. These statistics are further disaggregated by case type and court station, providing insight into the performance and workload of the judicial system. Collectively, they highlight both the progress made and the ongoing challenges in the dispensation of justice. Case Filings and Resolutions During the period under review, a total of 621,525 cases were filed across the Judiciary, compared to 516,121 cases in the previous year, representing an increase of 20 per cent. This was largely a result of increased filings in the expanded Small Claims Court, which were rolled out in the last quarter of the previous year. The Judiciary resolved 647,666 cases, compared to 509,664 cases in the previous year, a 25 per cent increase in case disposal. The significant improvement in resolution is attributed to the increased capacity at the expanded Small Claims Courts. The overall clearance rate stood at 104 per cent, indicating a drop in the number of pending cases as compared to the previous year, as shown in Table 2.4.1. Filed and resolved cases by type and court Court Rank Filed Cases Resolved Cases CCR (%) Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All Supreme Court - 70 70 - 72 72 103% Court of Appeal 1,269 3,587 4,856 1,177 2,541 3,718 77% High Court 19,756 28,456 48,212 18,261 38,275 56,536 117% 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Court Rank Filed Cases Resolved Cases CCR (%) Employment & Labour Relations Court - 4,854 4,854 - 6,389 6,389 132% Environment & Land Court - 8,923 8,923 - 10,331 10,331 116% Magistrates' Courts 246,476 124,976 371,452 243,689 144,606 388,295 105% Tribunals - 11,246 11,246 - 14,536 14,536 129% Small Claims Courts - 158,357 158,357 - 155,227 155,227 98% Kadhis' Courts - 13,555 13,555 - 12,562 12,562 93% All Courts 267,501 354,024 621,525 263,12 7 384,53 9 647,66 6 104% The steady rise in the number of cases filed and resolved by the Judiciary in recent years can be attributed to sustained measures to enhance access to justice, such as the expansion of court stations (Small Claims Courts rose from 11 in FY 2022/23 to current 40 stations), harnessing technology in e-filing and virtual hearings, efficiency and strengthening case management practices. Increased public awareness and confidence in the judicial system have also played a role, encouraging more individuals to seek redress through formal legal channels. Together, these dynamics have driven a consistent upward trend in both case filings and resolutions over time, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.1. Trends in Filed and Resolved Cases The trends in filed criminal and civil cases over time is shown in Figure 2.4.2. An analysis of filed cases by type reveals an 8 per cent overall decline in criminal case filings and a significant 58 per cent increase in civil cases compared to the previous year. While criminal filings at the Court of Appeal rose by 8 per cent, they declined by 12 per cent at the High Court and by 8 per cent at the Magistrates’ Courts. On the other hand, the substantial rise in civil case filings and resolutions is largely linked to the expansion and operationalization of Small Claims Courts, which have improved access to civil justice. Trends in Filed Criminal and Civil Cases The number of resolved criminal cases in the Judiciary increased slightly, from 262,912 in FY 2023/24 to 263,127 in the year under review. Likewise, the number of resolved civil cases rose across all court levels, except for Tribunals, compared to the previous year. The trend in resolved cases by type over the past seven years is shown in Figure 2.4.3. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8102 8102 Trends in Resolved Criminal and Civil Cases Case volumes per county vary widely. Figure 2.4.4 is a map providing a visual representation of the geographical spread and concentration of case filings in Kenya. Each county is labeled with the number of cases filed during the year. The shading indicates intensity with darker shades representing counties with higher case filings, while lighter shades represent lower filings. Nairobi tops the list with filings, followed by Kiambu, Nakuru, Mombasa, Machakos, Kisumu, Kakamega, Uasin Gishu, Meru, and Murang'a. Collectively, these ten counties accounted for 415,089 cases, representing approximately 68 per cent of the national total. At the low end, Tana River, Marsabit, West Pokot, Lamu, Mandera, Wajir, and Samburu recorded less than 2,000 cases. Filed Cases Per County The counties also show sharp contrasts in the share of criminal versus civil cases. West Pokot (83%), Elgeyo-Marakwet (79%), Turkana (78%), and Samburu (78%) lead in criminal case proportions, while Nairobi (25%), Tana River (37%), Uasin Gishu (39%), and Kisumu (39%) have the lowest proportion of criminal cases. This points to urban–rural divide where major urban and commercial hubs—Nairobi, Kisumu, Nakuru, Mombasa, and Kiambu—have more case filing related to property, land, commercial, contracts, and family matters. Rural and pastoralist counties, especially in arid and semi- arid areas, tend toward higher criminal caseloads. These patterns could be used to guide the allocation of resources, such as court infrastructure, judicial officers, and specialized services should be aligned with the predominant case types in each county. Counties with high criminal caseloads may require additional criminal courts, prosecutors, and legal aid services, while urban centers with more civil disputes would benefit from expanding civil courts, enhancing ADR services including mediation, and strengthening case management systems to address complex cases efficiently. Pending Cases A pending case refers to a matter that remains unresolved before the court at a specific point in time. As of June 30, 2025, the total number of pending cases stood at 598,628 representing a 6 per cent reduction from 635,262 cases recorded in June 2024, as presented in Table 2.4.2. This decline reflects the Judiciary’s sustained efforts in reduction of pending cases through various initiatives such as Mahakama Popote, service weeks, and enhanced case management practices. Notably, the reduction in pending cases was observed across most court levels, except in the Court of Appeal, Small Claims Courts, and Kadhis’ Courts, which recorded slight increases. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Pending Cases per Court Rank Court Rank Pending cases as at June 30, 2024 Pending Cases as at June 30, 2025 Change (%) CR CC ALL CR CC All Supreme Court - 47 47 - 45 45 -4% Court of Appeal 3,313 9,340 12,653 3,366 10,186 13,552 7% High Court 20,916 45,332 66,248 22,450 38,570 61,020 -8% Employment & Labour Relations Court - 6,973 6,973 - 5,452 5,452 -22% Environment & Land Court - 12,927 12,927 - 11,519 11,519 -11% Magistrates' Courts 279,945 224,629 504,574 262,332 208,226 470,558 -7% Tribunals - 14,568 14,568 - 11,361 11,361 -22% Small Claims Courts - 14,642 14,642 - 21,419 21,419 46% Kadhis' Courts - 2,630 2,630 - 3,702 3,702 41% All Courts 304,174 331,088 635,262 288,148 310,480 598,628 -6% Case Backlog Case backlog refers to matters that remain unresolved in court beyond the timeframes set in the Judiciary’s performance standards or by law. Matters that remain unresolved beyond 60 days in the Small Claims Courts are classified as backlog. In all other courts, any matter that is older than one year is categorized as backlog. As at June 30, 2025, the total backlog stood at 169,349 cases, down from 244,267 in June 2024, a reduction of 31%. Magistrates Courts account for the highest case backlog at 127,264, followed by the High Court at 23,469. This is tabulated in Table 2.4.3. Case Backlog per court rank Court Rank Total Case Backlog as at June 30, 2024 Case Backlog as at June 30, 2025 1-3 years Over 3 years All ages % Change in Backlog Supreme Court 7 2 1 3 -57% Court of Appeal 5,822 3,585 1,832 5,417 -7% High Court 31,106 9,336 14,133 23,469 -25% ELRC 4,927 3,455 409 3,864 -22% ELC 6,625 2,368 2,791 5,159 -22% Magistrates' Courts 187,370 94,048 33,216 127,264 -32% Tribunals 8,097 1,145 2,721 3,866 -52% Kadhis' Courts 313 251 56 307 -2% All Courts 244,267 114,190 55,159 169,349 -31% The Small Claims Court case backlog rose from 5,019 cases in FY 2023/24 to 10,853 cases in FY 2024/25. Adjournment of Cases Adjournments remain a significant factor hindering the timely resolution of cases in Kenyan courts. They contribute to delays, escalate litigation costs, and prolong uncertainty for litigants. Reducing case adjournments remains critical to enhancing judicial efficiency. Adjournment Rates During the year, adjournment rates declined across most courts, with the exception of the ELRC, Tribunals, and Small Claims Courts. As shown in Table 2.4.4, the Supreme Court maintained an adjournment rate of below 1 per cent, while the High Court improved from 7 per cent to 4 per cent, and the Court of Appeal reduced from 14 per cent to 11 per cent. These improvements reflect strengthened adherence to case management practices. Adjournment rates per court Court Adjournment Rate FY2023/24 Adjournment Rate FY2024/25 Supreme Court <1% <1% Court of Appeal 14% 11% High Court 7% 4% ELRC 2% 3% ELC 14% 12% Magistrates' Courts 18% 15% Kadhis' Courts 4% 3% Tribunals 6% 8% Small Claims Courts 3% 4% Reasons for Adjournment Addressing challenges brought about by adjournment of cases requires a clear understanding of the key drivers of adjournments, as this is central to reducing case backlogs and enhancing the efficiency of justice delivery. As illustrated in Figure 2.4.5, external reasons accounted for 53 per cent of all the causes. Figure 2.4.6 highlights the ten leading reasons for adjournments. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8104 8104 Internal vis- a-vis external reasons for adjournment Top ten reasons for adjournments Gender Statistics in Courts Gender statistics provide valuable insights into how women and men engage with, and are impacted by, the justice system. By disaggregating court data by gender, the Judiciary is better positioned to identify barriers faced by different groups of court users, promote fair representation, and support evidence-based reforms. Such insights are vital to the broader goal of building a justice system that is inclusive, responsive, and people- centered in line with the STAJ agenda. During the review period, women accounted for 28 per cent of litigants in the superior courts, either as plaintiffs or defendants. The analysis reveals persistent disparities in gender representation across case categories. In family-related matters, there was near parity, with women making up 51 per cent of adoption cases and 40 per cent of probate administration cases in the High Court. However, participation by women was considerably lower in other areas, with only 22 per cent of civil appeals and 13 per cent of constitutional petitions filed by or involving female litigants. Criminal cases were especially male-dominated, with men constituting 94 per cent of criminal appeals, 91 per cent of criminal applications, and 93 per cent of murder cases. In the specialized courts, women’s participation was similarly limited. Female litigants accounted for 27 per cent of cases filed in the Environment and Land Court, while in the Employment and Labour Relations Court, they constituted only 15 per cent of applicants. In the Magistrates’ Courts—which registered a total of 652,353 individual litigants during the reporting period, the imbalance was even more pronounced. Of these, 62,359 were plaintiffs and 589,994 were respondents or accused persons, with men making up 89 per cent of the total. In criminal cases before the Magistrates’ Courts, 92 per cent of accused persons were men, and in traffic cases, this proportion rose sharply to 99 per cent. Civil matters reflected a smaller, though still significant, disparity, with men representing 74 per cent of plaintiffs. Cases involving children comprised 7 per cent of the total caseload reviewed. Among children in conflict with the law, 94 per cent were boys and 6 per cent were girls. A similar trend was observed in cases involving children in contact with the law, where boys constituted 93 per cent of the caseload. Gender disparities were also evident in other judicial forums. In the Kadhi’s Courts, 65 per cent of applicants were male, while in the Small Claims Court, men accounted for 80 per cent of applicants compared to 20 per cent for women. In Tribunals, women constituted 32 per cent of applicants ii. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court of Kenya has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes related to presidential elections and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal in specified matters. Additionally, it gives advisory opinions upon request from the national government, any State organ, or any county government on matters concerning county government. The Court also hears appeals from tribunals set up to consider the removal of a judge under Article 168(8) and considers applications related to a declaration of a State of Emergency. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Filed and Resolved Cases A total of 70 cases were filed in the Supreme Court during the year. These included 46 Petitions, 22 Applications, and 2 Advisory Opinions. The Court determined 72 cases comprising 46 Petitions, 25 Applications, and 1 Advisory Opinion. Figure 2.4.7 illustrates the number of cases filed and resolved by case type Filed and Resolved Cases, Supreme Court Between FY 2018/19 and FY 2024/25, the number of cases filed in the Supreme Court declined from 96 to a low of 47 in 2020/21, before rising to 82 in 2023/24 and closing at 70 in 2024/25. Resolved cases mirrored this trend, dropping from 119 to 62 in the early years, peaking at 95 in 2022/23, and settling at 72 in 2024/25. Except for 2023/24, the Court consistently resolved as many or more cases than were filed, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.8. Trend on Filed and Resolved Cases, Supreme Court Pending Cases The number of pending cases shows a significant net reduction of 44 per cent over the seven-year period, as shown in Figure 2.4.9. Starting at 80 cases in 2018/19, the caseload declined steadily for five consecutive years, reaching a low of 32 cases in 2022/23. This downward trend then reversed, with pending cases rising to 47 in 2023/24 before settling at 45 by the end of FY 2024/25. Trends in pending cases, Supreme Court 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8106 8106 Case Backlog During the reporting period, the overall backlog stood at three cases: two aged between one and three years, and one over three years old. This reflects a significant reduction from seven backlog cases recorded in June 2024, representing a 57 per cent decrease. iii. The Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal derives its jurisdiction from Article 164(3) of the Constitution. It hears appeals from the High Court as well as other courts and tribunals prescribed by statute. The Court determines both criminal and civil matters, either through appeals or applications. As an appellate court, it is ordinarily constituted by a bench of three judges although an expanded bench of five judges may sit in certain instances. During the reporting period, the Court of Appeal operated six stations: Kisumu, Mombasa, Nairobi, Nakuru, Nyeri, and Eldoret. The Nairobi station was further divided into Criminal and Civil Divisions. To enhance accessibility and decentralize its services, the Court also maintained sub- registries in Busia, Garissa, Kakamega, Kisii, Malindi, and Meru. Filed and Resolved Cases During the reporting period, a total of 4,856 cases were filed in the Court of Appeal, while 3,718 cases were resolved. Both filings and resolutions have shown a steady upward trend over the past seven reporting cycles, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.10. Trend on Filed and Resolved Cases, Court of Appeal Pending Cases An analysis of pending cases over the seven-year period from 2018/19 to 2024/25 reveals a substantial and sustained rise in the overall caseload. The number of pending cases more than doubled, increasing from 6,840 in 2018/19 to 13,552 by the end of June 2025. This growth has been primarily driven by the persistent pattern of annual case filings outpacing resolutions, resulting in a steady accumulation of unresolved matters. By case type, pending civil cases rose sharply from 4,211 to 10,186, while pending criminal cases grew from 1,839 to 3,366 during the same period. Civil matters now constitute approximately three-quarters of all pending cases before the Court, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.11. Trends of Pending Cases, Court of Appeal As illustrated, the Nairobi Civil Division accounted for the largest share of pending cases, with 5,657 matters, representing approximately 41 per cent of the total among the three busiest stations. Kisumu recorded 2,251 cases (17 per cent), followed closely by Nyeri with 2,083 cases (17 per cent). 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Pending cases per Court of Appeal station Case Backlog The Court recorded a 7 per cent reduction in case backlog during the reporting period, with the number of cases pending for more than one year declining from 5,822 to 5,417. Of the re maining backlog, cases aged between one and three years accounted for 25 per cent, while those pending for more than three years comprised 75 per cent, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.13. Case Backlog in the Court of Appeal Backlog trends from June 2020 to June 2025 show an initial rise from 4,982 cases to a peak of 7,426 in 2021/22, followed by a steady decline to 5,417 by 2024/25, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.14. This represents a reduction of nearly 30 per cent from the peak. Despite the decline, the 2024/25 backlog remained slightly higher than the 2019 baseline, indicating that overall backlog levels have not yet returned to pre-peak levels. Trend on Case Backlog, Court of Appeal iv. The High Court The High Court is established under Article 165 of the Constitution, with unlimited original jurisdiction to hear all criminal and civil matters, appeals from subordinate courts, and cases involving violations or infringements of the Constitution, among others. During the reporting period, the High Court operated 47 stations, in addition to five sub-registries. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8108 8108 Filed and Resolved Cases As shown in Figure 2.4.15, both filed and resolved cases increased significantly over the seven-year period. Filings initially declined from 30,695 in FY2018/19 to 23,602 in FY2019/20, before rising steadily to a peak of 48,392 in FY2023/24 and slightly declining to 48,212 in FY2024/25. Similarly, resolved cases dropped to 22,735 in FY2019/20, then increased consistently to reach 56,536 in FY2024/25. Resolutions exceeded filings in all years except FY2019/20 and FY2020/21. Trends of Filed and Resolved Cases, High Court During the FY 2024/25 reporting period, the High Court recorded a total of 48,212 newly filed cases across all stations and divisions. Of these, 19,756 were criminal cases, while 28,456 were civil matters. Over the same period, the Court concluded 56,536 cases, comprising 18,241 criminal cases and 38,315 civil cases, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.16. Distribution of filed and resolved cases, High Court Criminal Revision cases accounted for the largest proportion, with 9,274 filings and 8,939 resolutions, representing approximately 47 per cent of total filings in these categories. Miscellaneous Criminal Applications followed at 27 per cent (5,333 filed; 4,664 resolved), while Criminal Appeals comprised 19 per cent (3,720 filed; 3,323 resolved). Murder cases made up the smallest share at 7 per cent (1,429 filed; 1,335 resolved). Resolution rates across categories ranged from 89 per cent to 97 per cent, with Criminal Revision cases showing the narrowest gap between filings and resolutions, achieving a 97 per cent resolution rate. Figure 2.4.17 illustrates the filed and resolved volumes for these criminal case categories Distribution of filed and resolved Criminal cases, High Court 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Miscellaneous Applications accounted for the largest share of civil caseloads, representing 47 per cent of filings (10,309 filed; 12,628 resolved), followed by Civil Appeals at 35 per cent (8,419 filed; 8,736 resolved). As illustrated in Figure 2.4.18, the top two categories together accounted for 82 per cent of all civil filings. The Court recorded a Case Clearance Rate (CCR) of over 300 per cent in Probate & Administration matters, reflecting the impact of the RRI exercise conducted in March 2025. Distribution of filed and resolved Civil cases, High Court Milimani Commercial and Tax Division (3,288), Mombasa (2,294), Milimani Family Division (2,101) and Kisumu (2,034) had the highest number of filed cases all attaining over 2,000 filed cases. On the other hand, Kapenguria (171), Eldama Ravine(128), Milimani ACEC (79), Maralal (77) and Mandera (19) filed less than 200 cases in the year. Pending Cases Pending cases have shown a consistent decline over the past seven years, decreasing from 87,477 in 2018/19 to 61,006 in the current reporting period (FY2024/25). As illustrated in Figure 2.4.19, this reduction is largely driven by a substantial decrease in civil cases, which fell by 43 per cent, from 68,136 in 2018/19 to 38,665 in 2024/25. In contrast, criminal cases followed an upward trajectory, increasing by 16 per cent over the same period, from 19,341 to 22,351. Three divisions at Milimani were among the 19 courts with pending cases exceeding 1,000: Milimani Civil (5,639), Milimani Family (5,090), and Milimani Commercial and Tax (4,654). Other stations outside Nairobi with high pending caseloads included Eldoret (4,027), Nakuru (3,953), and Kiambu (2,702). Trends in Pending Criminal and Civil Cases, High Court Case Backlog The total backlog declined significantly by 25 per cent, from 31,106 cases in 2023/24 to 23,469 cases in 2024/25. As depicted in Figure 2.4.20, the current backlog comprises 9,336 cases pending for 1 - 3 years and 14,133 cases pending for over 3 years, reflecting a balanced distribution between the two categories. Milimani Civil had the highest number of backlog at 3,822 cases, a decline by 5% from the previous period, followed by Milimani Commercial and Tax (3,764) cases and Milimani Family with 1,817 cases. A total of 42 stations reduced their case backlog. Migori (81%) managed the highest level of reduction in backlog, followed by Eldoret (79%), Nyeri (72%) and Embu (71%). Detailed Court statistics are presented in Annex 2.1. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8110 8110 Case backlog by age, High Court v. The Employment and Labour Relations Court The Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) is a specialized superior court established under Article 162(2) of the Constitution, tasked with hearing and determining employment and industrial relations disputes. Matters at the Court are categorised as either Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA), Cause Disputes, Petitions, Miscellaneous Applications, Appeals, or Reviews. During the period under review, there were 10 ELRC stations in Bungoma, Eldoret, Kakamega, Kericho, Kisumu, Malindi, Mombasa, Nairobi, Nakuru, and Nyeri. Kakamega, Kericho, and Malindi stations were supported by visiting judges. To further improve on access to justice, the Judiciary operationalised 10 ELRC sub-registries in Garissa, Kisii, Kitale, Kitui, Machakos, Meru, Naivasha, Siaya, Thika, and Voi. The court was served by 28 Judges. Filed and Resolved Cases A total of 4,854 cases were filed in the Court during the year. The Nairobi Claims and Labour Rights Division registered the highest number, with 1,780 cases followed by Mombasa and Kisumu with 563 and 367 filings, respectively. The Voi Sub-Registry recorded only two cases. In the same period, the Court resolved 6,389 cases. The Nairobi Claims and Labour Rights Division again led with 2,836 cases resolved. Mombasa and Kisumu followed with 697 and 587 resolutions, respectively. The Voi Sub-Registry did not resolve any cases during the year. As illustrated in Figure 2.4.21, filings in the Court rose from 2,672 in 2018/19 to 4,854 in 2024/25, reflecting a cumulative caseload growth of 82 per cent. Resolved cases increased by 51 per cent over the same period, from 4,228 to 6,389. Trends in filed and resolved cases, ELRC Cause Disputes were the most common category in both filings and resolutions, with 1,780 cases filed and 2,836 resolved. Appeals and Miscellaneous Applications also featured prominently among filings. Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) were filed exclusively in the Nairobi Claims Division, accounting for 305 cases, and were primarily resolved there as well, with 135 cases concluded. No CBA filings were reported in other stations. Pending Cases Pending cases declined steadily from 13,788 in 2018/19 to 5,454 in 2024/25, marking a 60 per cent reduction as depicted in Figure 2.4.22. After a temporary 8 per cent increase during 2020/21 pandemic disruptions, the downward trend resumed with particular momentum in subsequent years. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE The most significant reductions occurred between 2021/22 and 2023/24, with consecutive annual decreases of 17 per cent and 21 per cent. Overall, 5,454 fewer cases remained pending by the period's end. Trend in Pending Cases, ELRC As shown in Figure 2.4.23, Labour dispute cases (2,654) accounted for the highest proportion representing approximately 49 per cent of pending cases. Miscellaneous Applications followed at 19 per cent (1,011), while Appeals comprised 15 per cent (840) and Petition causes 10 per cent (567). Pending cases by specific case types, ELRC Case Backlog During the reporting period, case backlog in the ELRC decreased by 12 per cent to 3,864 cases from 4,370 cases in FY 2023/24. A significant portion of these cases, approximately 90per cent, falls within the age bracket of 1 to 3 years as shown in Figure 2.4.24. Case backlog by category ELRC 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8112 8112 vi. The Environment and Land Court The Environment and Land Court (ELC) is established by Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya and operationalised by the ELC Act No.19 of 2011. It is established to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to land. The court also exercises appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of subordinate courts and local tribunals in respect to matters falling within its jurisdiction. Matters at the ELC are categorised as General Suits, Miscellaneous Applications, or Appeals. In the year under review, 51 Judges were serving in 40 ELC stations and 5 sub registries across the country. Filed and Resolved Cases During the reporting period, 8,923 new cases were filed, and 10,331 cases were resolved, achieving a case clearance rate of 116 per cent. The ELC has maintained a case clearance rate of over 100 per cent over the past seven years effectively reducing the number of pending matters before it. The number of both filed and resolved cases over the recent reporting periods is illustrated in Figure 2.4.25 The majority of the cases filed and resolved were General Suits and Appeals. Trends in filed and resolved cases, ELC The breakdown of filed cases comprised Suits (2,849), Appeals (2,345), Miscellaneous Applications (1,866), Petitions (546), Judicial Review (322), Originating Summons (967), Notices of Motion (26), and References (2). Milimani recorded the highest number of filings at (2,040), followed by Thika (629), Mombasa (437), Machakos (402), and Malindi (390). The lowest filings were recorded in Chuka (74), Vihiga (74), Isiolo (70), Nyamira (68), Garissa (51), and Lodwar (5), with no matters filed in Lamu during the period. In the same period, the Court resolved a total of 10,331 cases, with Suits constituting the largest share at 44per cent. Milimani recorded the highest number of resolutions (1,905), followed by Mombasa (630), Kajiado (626), Malindi (539) and Thika (525). The lowest resolutions were recorded in Nanyuki (80), Vihiga (71), Iten (57 each), and Garissa (35). Lamu and Lodwar did not resolve any matters during the period. Pending Cases The Court experienced a decrease of pending cases by 11 per cent to 11,519 matters in FY 2024/25 as compared to the previous year. The stations with the highest pending cases were Milimani 2,654, Thika 1,313, Eldoret 1,075, Malindi 84, and Mombasa 836. The stations with the lowest pending cases were Kilgoris 40, Voi 38, Chuka 35, Nyandarua 17 and Lodwar 6. Lamu did not have any pending case. This, however, is a significant reduction from 24,574 cases in FY2018/19 as shown in Figure 24..26 Trend of Pending Cases, ELC 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Case Backlog During the reporting period, the overall case backlog in the ELC decreased by 22 per cent, falling from 6,625 in FY2023-2024 to 5,159 cases in FY2024- 2025. The cases with the highest case backlog were Milimani 712, Eldoret 591, Makueni 522, Kitui 407 and Nyeri 387, while the courts with the lowest case backlog were Isiolo 12, Garissa 11, Iten 10, Chuka 6 and Nanyuki 4. Cases older than three years comprised 46 per cent of the total backlog. as illustrated in Figure 2.4.27. Case backlog by category ELC vii. Magistrates’ Courts In the year under review, six Magistrates’ Courts in Kendu Bay, Kamwangi, Wamunyu, Dagoretti, Moiben and Kombewa were established, bringing the total number of Magistrates’ Courts in the country to 143. Seven stations exclusively handle criminal cases; these are JKIA, Kahawa, Kibera, Makadara, Milimani Anti-Corruption, Milimani Chief Magistrates’, and Shanzu Magistrates Courts. Milimani Commercial and Milimani Family Courts handle civil matters only. In addition, 13 specialised courts handling Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) cases have been established. To further enhance access to court services, 59 mobile courts were in operation during the year. Filed and Resolved Cases During the FY 2024-2025, the Magistracy filed 371,452 cases. Among these, 246,476 cases were criminal in nature, while 124,976 cases were civil in nature. The court resolved a total of 388,295 matters, of which 243,689 were criminal while 144,606 were civil cases. An analysis of trends since FY 2019/2020 indicates a 28 per cent increase in the number of filed cases, rising from 298,838 in FY 2019/2020 to a peak of 383,277 in FY 2023/2024. However, this was followed by a slight decline of 3 per cent in FY 2024/2025. The number of resolved cases registered an increased remarkably by 54 per cent from 251,496 in FY2019-2020 to 388,295 in FY2023/2024, as shown in Figure 2.4.28. Trends of Filed and Resolved Cases, Magistrates’ Courts Makadara recorded the highest number of filings at 17,355 cases, followed closely by the Milimani Chief Magistrates Court with 16,531 cases. Other stations in the top ten for filings included Milimani Commercial, Mombasa, Nakuru, Eldoret, Thika, Ruiru, Mavoko, and Kakamega. Collectively, these ten stations accounted for 30per cent of all cases filed in the magistrates’ courts. There were 37 stations that filed less than 1,000 cases. On average, approximately 30,000 cases were filed each month across the magistrates’ courts. The top ten courts in case resolutions, in order, were Milimani Commercial Court, Milimani Chief Magistrates’ Court, Makadara, Mombasa, Nakuru, Eldoret, Thika, Mavoko, Ruiru, and Bungoma. Pending Cases At the end of the FY 2024/2025, the overall pending cases in the Magistrates Courts stood at 470,558 cases which represents a 4 per cent decrease from 489,072 cases as at June 30, 2024. Criminal cases accounted for 56 per cent of the pending cases which amounted to 262,332 cases. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8114 8114 Civil cases on the other hand were 208,226 cases. Pendency in criminal cases grew by one per cent whereas civil cases recorded a 9 per cent decline in pendency. The data indicates fluctuations in pending civil cases increased by 25 per cent, from 204,457 in FY2017-2018 to 266,451 in FY2022-2023, before decreasing by 12 per cent to 224,629 in FY2023/24, and a further drop by 7 per cent as depicted in Figure 2.4.29. Trends of Pending Cases, Magistrates' Courts The number of pending cases range from 17 cases at Wamunyu to 48,453 at the Milimani Commercial court. Seven stations (5 per cent) had pending cases in excess of 10,000, that is: Milimani Commercial, Mombasa, Nakuru, Makadara, Eldoret, Busia and Kitale. These 7 stations contributed to 40 per cent of all pending cases in the Magistrates’ Courts. The average number of pending cases was 3,279 cases. Backlog Cases As of June 30, 2025, the overall case backlog in the magistracy stood at 127,264 cases, representing a 31 per cent reduction from 184,458 cases recorded on June 30, 2024. The majority of the backlog—74 per cent—consisted of cases aged between one and three years, while the remaining 26 per cent comprised cases pending for more than three years. Figure 2.4.30 illustrates the percentage distribution of pending cases by age in the Magistrates’ Courts Case backlog Magistrates' Courts viii. Child Justice Statistics Placing the best interest of the child at the heart of judicial processes, the Judiciary’s Child Justice Strategy is reshaping how minors engage with the legal system. Specialized children’s courts ensure that proceedings are conducted in private, child-friendly environments that protect safety, confidentiality, and psychological well-being, reflecting international standards in child-centered justice. Judges and judicial officers are being sensitized to make decisions guided by the welfare and rights of the child, fostering trust in the justice system among vulnerable populations. During the review period, 15,670 cases involving children were recorded in magistrates’ courts nationwide. Of these, 14,573 cases (93 per cent) involved children in contact with the law, while 1,054 cases (7 per cent) involved children in conflict with the law. Defilement remained the most prevalent offence (268 cases), with property and violent crimes, such as stealing, robbery with violence, and grievous harm, also prominent. These trends highlight persistent social vulnerabilities and underscore the need for prevention and rehabilitation interventions that safeguard children’s welfare. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Children in Contact and In Conflict with the Law Gender disparities are pronounced, with boys representing 94 per cent of children in conflict with the law, emphasizing the need for targeted, child-sensitive interventions. By centering decisions on the best interest of the child, these reforms not only protect individual minors but also strengthen broader societal outcomes—reducing cycles of crime, supporting safe communities, and creating pathways for education, rehabilitation, and reintegration. The Judiciary’s investments in child-centered justice, combined with enhanced data tracking and reporting, provide partners with clear opportunities to support initiatives that promote equity, uphold children’s rights, and deliver measurable impact across Kenya’s justice system. The summary of cases and ratio of boys to girls is graphed in Figure 2.31. The most prevalent case type in this category was defilement, followed by Stealing and Grievous Harm. Cases that were sexual in nature contributed nearly half (45 per cent) of filed cases where a child was in conflict, whereas cases where children were alleged to be involved in theft, breaking into a building, robbery or handling stolen property accounted for 25 per cent of filed children in conflict with the law. A detailed breakdown of these cases is shown in Table 2.4.5. Filed Cases where a child was in conflict with the law Case Type Number Defilement 268 Stealing 169 Grievous Harm 95 Breaking into Building 85 Robbery With Violence 67 Sexual Offense 67 Assault 48 Felony 46 Possession of Narcotic Drugs 44 Attempted Defilement 43 Drug Trafficking 24 Creating Disturbance 23 Indecent Act 22 Being Unlawfully Present in Kenya 21 Incest 11 Arson 6 Child In Conflict with the Law 6 Handling Stolen Goods 4 Robbery 3 Possession of Weapons 2 Total 1,054 In instances where a child was in contact with the law, the top cases filed included “Custody and Maintenance” (45 per cent) and “Children in Need of Care and Protection” (43 per cent). These two broad categories incidentally contributed to 89 per cent of the cases where a child was in contact with the law, as tabulated in Table 2.4.6. Filed Cases where a child was in contact with the law Case Type Number Custody and Maintenance 6,609 Care and Protection - Children Officer 5,624 Care and Protection - Police Station 695 Guardianship 605 Children Miscellaneous 514 Child Negligence / Cruelty 302 Indecent Act with a Child 140 Child Stealing 53 Children Act, No. 29 Of 2022 26 Subjecting a Child into Labour 24 Extension of Parental Responsibility 13 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8116 8116 Case Type Number Foster Care Protection 10 Assisting a Child to Escape 1 Total 14,616 The distribution of child justice cases across counties highlights both the demand for specialized services and the concentration of children affected by legal issues in urban and peri-urban areas. Nairobi County recorded the highest number of children in contact with the law, with 3,513 cases, followed by Nakuru (1,167), Kiambu (993), and Mombasa (930). Collectively, these four counties represent a substantial portion of the national total of 14,616 cases, emphasizing the need for targeted welfare and protection interventions in high-burden areas. For children in conflict with the law, the trend is similar but more concentrated: Mombasa (216 cases), Nakuru (201), and Nairobi (147) accounted for the majority of cases, with Kiambu trailing at 39. Boys overwhelmingly dominate these figures, with Nakuru (411), Mombasa (352), Nairobi (265), and Makueni (71) recording the highest numbers. Girls remain a small minority, led by Nairobi with 22 cases, followed by Nakuru and Kiambu (6 each) and Mombasa (5), with most other counties reporting very few or none. This is shown in Table 2.4.7. Filed Cases and Gender Children in Conflict with the law by County County Number of Filed Cases Number of Children in Conflict with the Law Contact Conflict Boys Girls Baringo 127 28 53 1 Bomet 124 20 38 2 Bungoma 369 8 16 1 Busia 74 8 14 0 Elgeyo Marakwet 30 3 6 0 Embu 136 7 16 1 Garissa 89 4 5 0 Homa Bay 179 8 17 0 Isiolo 47 2 2 0 Kajiado 514 5 10 0 Kakamega 264 22 47 2 Kericho 187 9 18 0 Kiambu 993 39 65 6 Kilifi 189 11 27 1 Kirinyaga 241 17 19 1 Kisii 377 7 10 0 Kisumu 474 14 37 2 Kitui 133 4 3 1 Kwale 74 5 10 0 Laikipia 210 8 18 0 Lamu 155 4 6 1 Machakos 348 23 43 1 Makueni 153 34 71 0 Mandera 55 0 0 Marsabit 80 9 17 1 Meru 363 19 35 3 Migori 82 21 43 0 Mombasa 930 216 352 5 Murang'a 229 26 51 4 Nairobi 3513 147 265 22 Nakuru 1167 201 411 6 Nandi 138 9 19 0 Narok 221 13 31 0 Nyamira 83 6 13 0 Nyandarua 186 15 28 0 Nyeri 297 16 29 3 Samburu 64 7 12 4 Siaya 207 7 15 0 Taita Taveta 162 16 34 1 Tana River 37 11 20 0 Tharaka-Nithi 93 0 0 Trans Nzoia 451 0 0 Turkana 84 3 4 0 Uasin Gishu 409 5 11 1 Vihiga 154 3 6 0 Wajir 80 3 5 1 West Pokot 44 11 23 0 Total 14,616 1,054 1,975 71 These patterns underline the urgent need for county-level, child-focused interventions that are gender-sensitive and tailored to the distinct profiles of children in conflict and in contact with the law. For the partners, the data highlights opportunities to support programs that reduce risk, strengthen rehabilitation, and ensure the welfare and protection of all children within Kenya’s justice system. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE ix. Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Cases The establishment of specialised courts and procedures for handling Sexual and Gender-Based Violence cases have enhanced access to justice and improved case outcomes. The integration of fast-tracking mechanisms, dedicated SGBV-trained judicial officers, and supportive court infrastructure, such as private testimony rooms and video-link facilities, are being undertaken to strengthen the handling of these cases. In the year, a total of 31,460 SGBV cases were filed across the courts. This represents a slight increase of 284 cases (0.9%) compared to 31,176 cases filed in FY 2023/2024. The upward trend is an indication of continued reporting and enforcement of SGBV-related offences, which may reflect both heightened public awareness and improved responsiveness by the justice sector. Grievous harm and assault cases remained the most prevalent, accounting for nearly three-quarters of all filed SGBV cases, while sexual offences committed against minors, which include defilement and attempted defilement, ranked second, constituting approximately 19 per cent of total filings. During the same period, 31,880 cases were concluded, translating to an overall Case Clearance Rate (CCR) of 101%. This is a notable improvement from the 97% CCR recorded in the previous year. The overall improvement in clearance rate demonstrates enhanced efficiency in the handling of SGBV cases, possibly resulting from strengthened case management systems, inter-agency coordination, and increased prioritization of gender-based violence within the justice system. As shown in Table 2.4.8, a category-wise review of these offences shows varying performance across case types. Defilement as well as rape, gang rape, attempted rape, and attempted gang rape, recorded a clearance rate of over 100 per cent. Other SGBV- related offences such as detention of females for immoral purposes, incest, indecent acts, offences against morality, and unnatural offences, also had a CCR exceeding 100 per cent. On the other hand, the number of pending grievous harm, assault, and sexual assault cases increased. This signals the need for targeted interventions such as specialised investigations, survivor-centred procedures, and faster forensic support. Filed and concluded SGBV cases Case Type Number of Filed Cases Number of Concluded Cases CCR Defilement 6,088 6,847 112% Rape 1,014 1,058 104% Sexual Assault 399 312 78% Grievous Harm and Assault 23,269 22,912 98% Other Sexual Offences 690 751 109% Total 31,460 31,880 101% x. Kadhis’ Courts Kadhis' Courts are established under Article 170 of the Constitution with the jurisdiction to hear and determine matters of Islamic law concerning personal status, marriage, divorce, and inheritance, provided that all parties involved are Muslim and consent to the court's jurisdiction. The cases handled by Kadhis' Courts are categorised into divorce and marriage registration, matrimonial causes, miscellaneous applications, and succession. Filed and Resolved Cases A total of 13,555 new cases were filed, while 12,562 cases were resolved at the Kadhis’ Courts. The majority of both filed and resolved cases comprised marriage and miscellaneous applications. Over the past seven years, the number of filed cases has shown a consistent upward trend. Resolved cases, on the other hand, have exhibited a fluctuating pattern, with a slight decline in FY 2024–2025, decreasing from 12,615 to 12,562. This trend is illustrated in Figure 2.4.32 Trends of Filed and Resolved Cases, Kadhis’ Courts The highest number of cases were filed in the Nairobi and Mombasa stations, with 3,261 and 2,844 cases respectively, making up 24 per cent and 21 per cent of all cases filed. Among the different types of cases, marriage matters had the highest number, with 4.853 cases filed, representing 36 per cent of the total. Pending Cases The trend, as shown in Figure 2.4.33, shows that the number of pending cases in the Kadhis’ Courts rose steadily from FY 2017/18 to FY 2020/21, reaching its highest point during that period. This was followed by a noticeable decline in FY 2021/22, after which the numbers rose again, reaching 3,702 pending cases by the end of FY 2024/25. Mombasa (1,120 cases) and Nairobi (509 cases) account for the largest share of these pending cases 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8118 8118 The trend of Pending Cases, Kadhis Courts Case Backlog The Kadhis' Courts reduced the overall case backlog from 708 at the close of FY2023/2024 to 307 in FY2024/2025, which shows a reduction of 57 per cent. This significant improvement was attributed to enhanced case management strategies and data clean-up exercises conducted across the stations. Of the cases, 56 matters have been pending for over three years, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.34. Case Backlog According to Age, Kadhis’ Courts xi. Tribunals Tribunals are subordinate courts established under Article 169 of the Constitution and operationalized through specific legislation to perform judicial functions. They provide an efficient and cost-effective mechanism for resolving disputes in specialized areas, including but not limited to sports, transport, tax, civil aviation, and copyright. By focusing on these niche areas, tribunals aim to deliver prompt and expert adjudication, ensuring that cases are handled with the necessary specialized knowledge at a lower cost than traditional court proceedings. Their establishment forms part of a broader effort to enhance access to justice and streamline the resolution of complex, sector-specific issues. Filed and Resolved Cases During the period under review, a total of 11,246 new cases were filed, and 14,536 cases were resolved at the Tribunals. Over the past six years, there has been a consistent upward trend in both the number of filed and resolved cases. Both experienced a decline in the FY 2024-2025 as shown in Figure 2.4.35. Four tribunals - RRT, Cooperatives, BPRT, and Tax Appeals - accounted for 95 per cent of all cases filed, with the BPRT registering highest number of cases at 3,977 cases. Trends in Filed and Resolved Cases, Tribunals 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Pending Cases By the end of the reporting period, there were 11,361 pending cases in the Tribunals, representing a 22 per cent decrease compared to the previous year. Figure 2.4.36 illustrates the annual trend of pending cases in the Tribunals over the past seven years. The trend of Pending Cases, Tribunals Case Backlog Out of the 11,361 pending cases in the Tribunals, 3,866 constituted a case backlog, representing 34 per cent of the total pending cases. This backlog was further categorized by age, with 1,145 cases aged between 1- 3 years and 2,721 cases aged over 3 years. This indicated that 70 per cent of the backlog consists of cases older than 3 years as highlighted in Figure 2.4.37. Case Backlog by Age, Tribunals xii. Small Claims Court The Small Claims Court (SCC), established under Section 2 of the Small Claims Court Act, 2016, is a subordinate court with jurisdiction to determine specific civil claims. These include: contracts for the sale and supply of goods or services; contracts involving money held or received; liability in tort for loss or damage to property or for the delivery or recovery of movable property; compensation for personal injuries; and set-offs and counterclaims arising from contracts. The court’s monetary jurisdiction is limited to claims not exceeding Kenya Shillings one million. Cases filed in SCCs are generally categorised as breach of contract, commercial disputes, or personal injury claims. As of FY2024/25, there were 40 operational Small Claims Court stations. Filed and Resolved During the FY 2024/25, Small Claims Courts recorded a total of 158,357 filed cases. The Milimani SCC registered the highest caseload, with 120,914 cases representing 76 per cent of all filed matters in the SCCs. Eldoret and Nakuru followed with 5,394 and 3,665 cases, respectively. Debt Recovery cases dominated the filings, totalling 125,642 cases, which accounted for 79 per cent of the total. During the same period, SCCs resolved 155,227 cases. The Milimani court resolved the highest number, with 118,701 cases, representing 76 per cent of all resolved cases, followed by Eldoret and Thika courts with 4,805 and 3,827 cases, respectively. Debt Recovery cases formed the largest category of resolved cases, totaling 121,786 cases, representing 79 per cent. Figure 2.4.38 illustrates the number of filed and resolved cases by case type. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8120 8120 Trends of Filed and Resolved cases, SCC There was a significant increase in the number of cases filed at the Small Claims Court attributed primarily to two key factors. First, the establishment of new court stations in the final quarter of the previous year contributed to a rise in filings. Second, the Milimani station experienced a surge of over 100,000 commercial dispute cases, largely driven by filings from mobile credit providers. This trend is likely linked to the licensing of additional 27 digital credit providers by the Central Bank of Kenya, which has enabled increased legal action in loan recovery efforts. Debt recovery matters formed the largest category in both filed and resolved cases. A total of 137,556 were recorded, representing 79 per cent of all filed matters. Figure 2.4.39 illustrates the number of filed and resolved cases by case type. Number of filed and resolved cases by case type SCC Pending Cases As shown in Figure 2.4.40, pending cases at the Tribunals have risen sharply over the five-year period from FY 2020/21 to FY 2024/25, signaling increasing pressure on the system. In FY 2020/21, there were 386 pending cases, which rose to 1,069 in FY 2021/22. The number then escalated dramatically in FY 2022/23 to 7,264, more than six times the previous year’s total. This upward trajectory persisted in FY 2023/24, with 14,642 pending cases, and surged further to 33,141 by FY 2024/25— more than double the prior year’s figure. Milimani station accounted for the largest share, with 9,085 pending cases, followed by Eldoret (2,309 cases) and Kisumu (1,537 cases). The rapid accumulation of pending cases highlights growing operational bottlenecks and underscores the urgent need for targeted interventions to enhance efficiency and reduce delays in case resolution. Trends of Pending cases, SCC 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Majority of the cases pending in the Court are commercial cases which include breach of contracts and debt recoveries as shown in Figure 2.4.41 Pending cases by type, SCC xiii. Court Annexed Mediation Since its introduction in 2016, Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) has been implemented across the Judiciary. During the reporting period, CAM was adopted in 94 court stations across different court ranks throughout the country. Referred and Concluded matters During the reporting period, 9,843 cases were referred to CAM, marking a 50 per cent increase from the previous year’s 6,573 referrals. In the same period, 8,828 cases were concluded, resulting in a conclusion rate of 90 per cent. Table 2.4.9 shows the distribution of referred and concluded matters across the court ranks CAM Cases per Court Rank Court Type Referred matters Concluded matters Conclusion rate Court of Appeal 3 2 67% High Court 1061 936 88% ELRC 115 82 71% ELC 716 469 66% Magistrate Court 7712 7150 93% Small Claims Court 137 128 93% Kadhi Court 54 34 63% Tribunals 25 15 60% All Courts 9,823 8,816 90% Settlement Agreements in CAM A settlement agreement is a written and signed document that emerges from a mediation process, encompassing both full and partial agreements. A full agreement occurs when the parties successfully resolve all disputed issues. Partial agreement arises when the parties reach a consensus on some issues, while any remaining disputes are referred back to the trial court for resolution. Out of all the concluded matters in CAM, 4,566 cases had settlement agreements. This represented a settlement agreement rate of 61 per cent. Furthermore, 4,566 cases had full agreements,785 had partial agreements and 67 consents were recorded. Figure 2.4.42 shows the proportion of agreements by mode of settlement. proportion of CAM agreements by mode of settlement 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8122 8122 Non-Settled matters Non-settlement occurs when the parties are unable to resolve any of the issues in dispute, resulting in the entire case being referred back to the trial court for determination. This situation can arise from three scenarios: the absence of an agreement, non-compliance with the mediator's directions, or termination due to a technicality. There were 3,403 non-settled matters, comprising 2,467 cases with no agreements, 581 due to non- compliance, and 355 that were terminated. Figure 2.4.43 shows the distribution of non-settlements in the period under review. Distribution of Non-settlements in CAM Monetary value of cases Referred and Settled in CAM During the reporting period, the total monetary value of cases referred to mediation amounted to Ksh 63.53 billion. As shown in Table 2.4.10, approximately Ksh 26.5 billion of these cases were successfully settled Value of matters referred, agreed Court Type Total Value of Referred matters (KSh) Total value of settlement agreements (KSh) Court of Appeal - - High Court 46,088,681,706 18,765,372,298 Employment and Labour Relations Court 232601943.2 63643335.9 Environment and Land Court 6338864768 429176623.2 Magistrate Court 10,022,354,200 7,305,084,472 Small Claims Court 69,950,250 30,228,152 Kadhi Court 83,614,060 0 Tribunals 691,195,733 0 All Courts 63,527,262,660 26,593,504,881 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE CHAPTER THREE – JURISPRUDENCE INTRODUCTION The Judiciary continues to discharge its constitutional mandate as the independent organ entrusted with the administration of justice, the promotion of social justice, and the protection of the rule of law. Vested with judicial authority under Article 159 of the Constitution, the courts serve as the forum through which disputes are resolved, rights are enforced, and constitutional values are actualised. During the reporting period, courts at all levels demonstrated commitment to the transformative promise of the Constitution. Through their decisions, the courts and tribunals interpreted and applied the law across diverse fields including environmental justice, succession, public finance, land rights, among many others. The jurisprudence emerging during the year under review reflects a maturing constitutional culture, with courts grappling with evolving societal challenges and balancing competing interests in a principled and rights-based manner. Decisions rendered during the year also demonstrate a steady deepening of constitutional interpretation, with the courts and tribunals rendering landmark judgments that not only resolved individual disputes, but also contributed to institutional development and good governance. This chapter highlights key judicial decisions that underscore the Judiciary’s transformative role in society. In addition, it documents the growing body of demosprudence, the jurisprudence that emerges from the dialogue between formal courts and community-based justice systems. This reflects the Judiciary’s commitment to a people-centered justice approach through the promotion of Alternative Justice Systems (AJS) and other non-formal mechanisms, as required under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution. a. JURISPRUDENCE FROM THE SUPERIOR COURTS i. Supreme Court In the year under review, the Supreme Court rendered decisions that settled the law on critical questions of constitutional interpretation and matters of general public importance. These included matters touching on children’s inheritance rights under Muslim law, the evidentiary value of title deeds in land ownership disputes, the scope of environmental protection obligations of state organs, the scope of the Senate’s legislative mandate, the constitutional standards for public participation in the legislative process, and the distinction between mandatory and minimum sentences in criminal law. The Right of Children Born Out of Wedlock to Inherit Under Muslim Law FAAF v RFM & 2 others (Petition E035 of 2023) [2025] KESC 45 (KLR) Brief facts The dispute arose from the question of whether children born out of wedlock to a Muslim father can inherit under Muslim law from their deceased father. Article 24(4) of the Constitution allows the application of Islamic law in matters of personal status, marriage, divorce, and inheritance for parties who profess the Islamic faith. The deceased and the appellant celebrated an Islamic marriage and were subsequently, blessed with four children. Thereafter, the deceased commenced cohabitation with the 1 st respondent and were blessed with three children during the course of their cohabitation. It is after the birth of the three children that the deceased and the 1 st respondent got married under Islamic law. Similarly, the deceased also cohabited with the 3 rd respondent and later celebrated an Islamic marriage with her. Less than six months after the deceased’s marriage with the 3 rd respondent, they were blessed with a son. Following the demise of the deceased, a dispute arose as to whether the 1 st and 3 rd respondents’ children were entitled to inherit from the deceased under Muslim law. In particular, the appellant claimed that the 1 st respondent’s children were born prior to the celebration of her Islamic marriage with the deceased. Therefore, under Muslim law, the said children are considered illegitimate and incapable of inheriting from the deceased who professed the Islamic faith at the time of his death. Additionally, the appellant argued that the same position applied to the 3 rd respondent’s son, as though he was born a few months after her alleged Islamic marriage to the deceased, the appellant alleged that the 3 rd respondent’s Islamic marriage to the deceased was a nullity. There was no dispute concerning the appellant’s children since they were born within her Islamic marriage with the deceased. The High Court held that the applicable law to the deceased’s estate was Muslim law, as long as it was not repugnant to justice and morality, since the deceased was a Muslim at the time of his demise. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8124 8124 The High Court further held that where a Muslim man during his lifetime sires a child out of wedlock, such a child should be treated as a dependant and/or beneficiary to his estate. The High Court found that such a child should not be prejudiced because of his/her parents’ choices and the consequences thereof. The Court of Appeal also found that denying children born out of wedlock the right to inherit, while allowing those born within a marriage to benefit, would constitute unjustifiable and unfair discrimination contrary to Article 27 and 53 of the Constitution. As a result, the appellate court found that the 1 st and 3 rd respondents’ children were entitled to benefit from the deceased’s estate. Issues 1. Whether the Court of Appeal improperly limited the application of Article 24(4) of the Constitution, and in doing so, misconstrued the relationship between Articles 24(4), 27 and 53 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to give effect to the mandatory application of Muslim Law as provided under Section 2(3) of the Law of Succession Act. Holding 1. Article 24(4) of the Constitution demands the application of the proportionality principle, meaning that any Muslim law that departs from the Constitution’s guarantee of equality must be strictly limited in scope, reasonable in its purpose, justifiable within a democratic society, and genuinely necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. 2. Article 24(4) of the Constitution must be read in harmony with other provisions, such as articles 21 (3) and 53 of the Constitution. In cases involving the welfare of children touching on religious laws, doctrines, teachings, rules, or tenets, the paramount consideration by the court must be the protection of the welfare and best interests of the child, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case. 3. All laws, including religious or customary law, must be interpreted and applied through the lens of the Bill of Rights. Where the law applicable to a dispute did not yield an outcome consistent with those values and rights, the courts must integrate the normative content of the Bill of Rights into the interpretation and application of that law. In doing so, the law was transformed and applied in a manner that promoted the Constitution's transformative vision. 4. Where a Muslim man during his lifetime sires a child out of wedlock, such a child should be treated as a dependant and/or beneficiary to his estate. Such a child should not be prejudiced because of his/her parents’ choices and the consequences thereof. The petition was allowed. The matter was remitted to the High Court at Mombasa for determination of respective entitlements of the beneficiaries. Title Deeds are Prima Facie Evidence but Not Conclusive Proof of Land Ownership Harcharan Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Limited & 5 others, Petition E033 of 2023; [2025] KESC 21 (KLR) Brief Facts The appellants were registered leasehold proprietors of land in Nairobi acquired in 1968. Before the lease expired in 2001, they applied for renewal but received no formal response. In 2009, the Government allocated the same land to the 2 nd respondent, who later transferred it to the 1 st respondent. The appellants remained in possession until their eviction in 2014. They filed a suit before the Environment and Land Court, which nullified the respondents’ titles and reinstated the appellants as owners. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the ELC’s judgment, holding that the st respondent was a bona fide purchaser. The Supreme Court considered whether such a purchaser’s title could withstand an illegal allocation and addressed the doctrine of legitimate expectation in lease renewals. Issues 1. Whether the concept of indefeasibility of title under Section 23 of the repealed Registration of Titles Act was similarly applicable under Section 26 of the Land Registration Act. 2. Whether a certificate of title is conclusive or prima facie evidence of ownership. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE 3. The meaning, scope, and applicability of the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice. 4. Whether a legitimate expectation arises in the context of lease renewal over public land. Holding 1. Under the repealed Registration of Titles Act, title was conclusive evidence of ownership. On the other hand, under the Land Registration Act, a certificate of title is only prima facie evidence of ownership and can be challenged for fraud, misrepresentation, or illegality. 2. A bona fide purchaser must prove (i) innocence, (ii) payment of value, and (iii) acquisition of a legal estate. The doctrine protects purchasers against prior equitable interests, not illegal titles. It does not shield purchasers of illegally or irregularly allocated public land titles. 3. A title obtained through illegal or procedurally flawed processes is void. Such a title cannot confer valid ownership or attract equity's protection, even where the purchaser lacked knowledge of the illegality. 4. An original allottee of leasehold public land remains a lessee, not an owner. The estate subsists until expiry, after which the land reverts to the Government. Any subsequent allotment must follow lawful procedures. 5. The appellants had a legitimate expectation of renewal based on their application, occupation, and past renewals granted to others. A legitimate expectation arises when (i) there is a clear promise by a competent authority, (ii) the expectation is reasonable, and (iii) it is not contrary to law. The Government failed to consider or respond to their application, thus breaching procedural fairness. 6. The Court cautioned that recognising pre-emptive rights over public land leases could improperly convert leases into permanent ownership. A legitimate expectation gives a right to fair consideration, not automatic entitlement to renewal. The petition was allowed. Constitutional and Legal Obligations on State Organs to Ensure the Protection of the Environment Export Processing Zone Authority & 10 others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all residents of Owino-Uhuru Village in Mikindani, Changamwe Area, Mombasa) v National Environment Management Authority & 3 others, (Petition E021 of 2023) [2024] KESC 75 (KLR) Brief facts The case concerned the environmental impact of a lead-acid battery recycling factory operated by Metal Refinery (EPZ) Limited in Owino-Uhuru Village, Mombasa County. The residents alleged that toxic waste from the factory led to severe health problems, including lead poisoning and multiple deaths. The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) had initially issued an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) license to the factory. However, despite concerns about pollution, NEMA failed to enforce necessary environmental safeguards. Instead of halting the operations, NEMA allowed Metal Refinery to conduct "test runs" to assess the environmental impact of its discharges. The Environment and Land Court (ELC) found that NEMA, along with other state agencies, failed to uphold environmental protections, leading to the factory's continued operations despite clear environmental harm. The ELC awarded damages amounting to KSh 1.3 billion for loss of life and personal injury and KSh 700 million for environmental restoration. On appeal, the Court of Appeal modified the allocation of liability and revising the award of damages. The matter was further appealed to the Supreme Court, which examined whether NEMA had the legal authority to permit "test runs" and whether the Court of Appeal correctly assessed liability and damages. Issues (i) When can the State and its organs and agencies be held responsible for the actions of private persons. (ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of Article 23 of the Constitution, specifically the available remedies once a Court has determined that there were violations of rights. (iii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reversing the ELC’s award on damages and remitting the matter back to the ELC for re-assessment of the award of damages. (iv) What was the difference between a representative suit and a class action suit? (v) Whether the appellants were entitled to the reliefs sought. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8126 8126 Holding (i) Articles 69 and 260 of the Constitution impose a duty on all State organs to ensure respect for the environment. In addition, Section 23 (c) of the Export Processing Zone Act imposed a specific and clear obligation on the Export Processing Zones Authority to ensure that the environment was protected. (ii) The constitutional provision on the enforcement of the right to a clean and healthy environment is largely based on the Polluter Pays Principle. Those provisions gave extensive powers to the court to compel the government or any public agency to take restorative measures, to provide compensation to any victim of pollution, and to compensate the costs borne by victims for the lost use of natural resources as a result of an act of pollution. In addition to the Polluter Pays Principle, there was also the precautionary principle which directly impacted on environmental liability. The precautionary principle marked a shift from post-damage control (civil liability as a curative tool) to the level of pre-damage control (anticipatory measures of risk). (iii) The infringement in this case was not static but a continuous violation. Therefore, although the infringements began before 2010, the provisions of the Constitution were nevertheless applicable to the circumstances of the case given that the acts complained about were continuous. (iv) Under the provisions of Article 70(3) of the Constitution, an applicant does not have to demonstrate that he / she has incurred loss or suffered injury to justify award of remedies. Even in the absence of clear evidence to quantify the damage caused by the breach, courts may still award remedies based on the principle that the violation of constitutional rights itself warrants redress. (v) The difference between a representative suit and a class action suit was that a representative suit was opt-in in nature; parties instituting a representative suit were required to give notice of the suit to all persons with the same interest. A class action related to proceedings in which an individual or a group of people with a common complaint lodged a legal challenge in court against an organisation or an individual on behalf of a larger group or class of people. If successful, all consumers aggrieved stood to get compensated. (vi) The court's ability to grant a remedy, including compensation, was however limited by certain principles, including the enforceability and appropriateness of the remedy, and it cannot also grant a remedy at large. The identity of the persons represented in the suit ought to be reasonably ascertainable. Courts could not issue vague or unenforceable orders, and the identities of the represented individuals were crucial in determining the scope and amount of compensation. Without clarity on who was represented, it would be difficult for the court to fashion an enforceable order. Compensation in class action and representative suits hinged on defining the class or group represented. Once the group was clearly identified, the court could tailor the remedy to ensure that it was appropriate, specific, effective and enforceable for the affected parties. (vii) The ELC arrived at the correct amount in terms of compensation for personal injury and loss of life; the amount was neither excessive nor did the court consider an irrelevant factor. The Court of Appeal had arrived at the wrong conclusion in its finding that the persons were not identifiable. The sum of Ksh 1.3 billion issued by the trial court on account of general damages for loss of life and personal injury was not only for the benefit of the 2 nd to 11 th appellants but for the 450 households and residents of Owino Uhuru Village which encompassed an approximate 13.5 acres. Appeal partly allowed. The Court affirmed the award of damages for environmental damage by the ELC and remitted the matter to ELC Mombasa to monitor compliance with restoration orders. Scope of the Senate’s Participation in Law-Making Senate & 3 others v Speaker of the National Assembly & 10 Others, Petition No. 19 (E027) of 2021[2025] KESC 11 (KLR) Brief facts The Senate challenged the enactment of 23 Acts of Parliament passed by the National Assembly between 2018 and 2021 without the involvement of the Senate. They contended that the Speaker of the National Assembly had unconstitutionally excluded the Senate from the legislative process in contravention of Articles 96, 110(3), and 112 of the Constitution. The Senate argued that the Acts touched on county functions and, as such, required the Senate’s input as part of the bicameral legislative process. The National Assembly, through its Speaker and the Attorney General, opposed the petition, asserting that the Speaker had discretion to determine whether a Bill concerned counties and that not all laws required Senate participation. In addition, the National Assembly counter-appealed against the finding by the Court of Appeal that the Parliamentary Service Act, 2019 was unconstitutional on the ground that the question of the constitutionality of that statute arose for the first time at the Court of Appeal, and had not been determined by the High Court. Issues 1. Whether the Constitution provides for the participation of the Senate in the consideration and enactment of a Money Bill; 2. Whether it is mandatory for every Bill published by either House of Parliament to undergo the joint concurrence process under Article 110(3); 3. Whether the 23 Acts passed without Senate involvement were unconstitutional and invalid. Holding i. A holistic reading of the relevant constitutional provisions reveals that the Constitution expressly excludes the Senate from participating in the consideration and enactment of Money Bills. This position is affirmed by the exclusion of Article 114 of the Constitution, which addresses the legislative process of enacting money bills, from the scope of Article 96(2) which calibrates the Senate’s role in the passage of Bills. Therefore, once a Bill is classified as a Money Bill, the Senate lacks the authority to introduce or deliberate on it. ii. Article 110(3) of the Constitution provides that the Speakers of the National Assembly and the Senate “shall jointly resolve any question as to whether a Bill concerns counties.” This means that a joint determination is only required when there is uncertainty or disagreement about the nature of the Bill. If both Speakers independently agree on the classification, there is no need to invoke the joint resolution process. The provision anticipates that questions may arise in some cases, but it also presupposes that such a question must first exist before the mechanism for joint resolution is triggered. Therefore, the joint resolution process is intended as a dispute-resolution mechanism, not a mandatory step for all Bills. iii. The obligations under Article 110(3) of the Constitution must be fulfilled in a way that fosters legislative harmony and cooperation between the two Houses of Parliament. A purposive reading of Article 110(3) leads to the conclusion that determining whether a Bill concerns county government, and its proper classification, can only happen if both Speakers, who are central to the concurrence process, are fully informed of all Bills introduced in either House. This calls for a proactive and transparent approach. Each Speaker must notify the other when a Bill is introduced, including the position taken on whether the Bill concerns counties. This is especially important in cases where there is a likelihood of a dispute arising, even if no formal disagreement has yet occurred. Such an approach promotes institutional dialogue, prevents procedural breakdowns, and reduces the risk of a Bill being invalidated later in the legislative process. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE iv. The Court found that 19 of the 23 challenged Acts did not require the involvement of the Senate and were thus validly enacted. However, it held that three Acts did require Senate participation and were therefore enacted unconstitutionally. These are: o The Equalization Fund Appropriation Act, No. 3 of 2018; o The Sacco Societies (Amendment) Act, No. 16 of 2018; and, o The amendments to Sections 3 and 4 of the Kenya Medical Supplies Authority Act introduced by the Health Laws (Amendment) Act, No. 5 of 2019. v. The Court suspended the declaration of invalidity of the Sacco Societies (Amendment) Act, 2018 for a period of 18 months from the date of the judgment to allow for its proper re-enactment in accordance with the Constitution. vi. The Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s finding that the Parliamentary Service Act, 2019 was unconstitutional given that the question of unconstitutionality of this statute was neither raised before nor determined by the High Court. Appeal dismissed. Counter appeal on the constitutionality of the Parliamentary Service Act, 2019 allowed. The Legal Threshold for Public Participation in the Legislative Process and the Constitutional Validity of Amendments Introduced through the Finance Act, 2023 Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury and Planning & 4 Others v Okoiti & 52 Others; Bhatia (Amicus Curiae), Consolidated Petitions Nos. E031, E032 & E033 of 2024, [2024] KESC 63 (KLR) Brief facts The Finance Act, 2023 introduced significant tax reforms, including changes to income tax rates, adjustments to excise duties and introduction of a housing levy, sparking legal challenges in the High Court. Petitioners argued that parts of the Act violated public participation requirements, lacked justification for legislative decisions, and were enacted unconstitutionally without proper revenue estimates or concurrence by the two Houses. The High Court upheld most provisions of the Act but invalidated the housing levy for lacking a legal framework and violating equality principles. It also nullified amendments to the Kenya Roads Act and Unclaimed Financial Assets Act, deeming them unrelated to a Money Bill. The Court of Appeal declared the entire Finance Act, 2023 unconstitutional. It ruled that significant post-public participation amendments required further public consultation and criticised the National Assembly for failing to justify its decisions. Additionally, it found the Appropriations Bill lacked the required revenue and expenditure estimates. The Court did not render a determination on the housing levy’s constitutionality since a new Affordable Housing Act had addressed it, rendering the issue moot. Issues i. Whether amendments made after the public participation process require renewed public consultation. ii. Whether Parliament is obligated to provide justification for amendments made after public participation. iii. Whether the housing levy and other provisions were validly enacted into law. Holding i. The issue of the constitutionality of housing levy was moot, as it had been overtaken by the enactment of the Affordable Housing Act, 2024. Hence, the Court, like the Court of Appeal, did not pronounce itself on the issue. ii. The amendments to the Kenya Roads Act and the Unclaimed Financial Assets Act were unconstitutional. They were unrelated to the definition of a Money Bill and were improperly included in the Finance Act, contrary to Article 114 of the Constitution. iii. The substantive amendments introduced after public participation must undergo a fresh round of public consultation if they were not informed by prior public input. However, technical or minor amendments do not require a new participation process. In addition, given the 61-day timeline for passing a Finance Bill, it is untenable to require or subject amendments intended to give effect to proposals and suggestions from a public participation exercise to another fresh round of public participation. iv. Parliament is not constitutionally required to provide reasons for accepting or rejecting public submissions. Nonetheless, it must adopt reasonable measures to document and consider public views. The National Assembly’s Departmental Committee on Finance had adequately reported on and responded to public views in its report on the Finance Bill. v. Revenue estimates are not a component of the Appropriations Act and the court therefore upheld the legislative process regarding the 2023/2024 budget. vi. Courts should generally defer to Parliament on policy matters. However, the High Court retains residual jurisdiction under Article 165 to determine the constitutionality of any law, policy, or decision. In addition, the Supreme Court recommended to Parliament as follows: 1. Establish a legislative framework to standardise and regulate the process of public participation. 2. All versions of Bills, at every stage of the legislative process, should be made accessible to the public for review and scrutiny. 3. Adopt reasonable measures to ensure meaningful consideration of public proposals, views, and comments during law-making processes. Conceptual distinction between minimum and mandatory sentences Republic vs Mwangi; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) & 3 Others (Amicus Curiae) (Petition E018 of 2023) [2024] KESC 34 (KLR) Brief Facts The respondent was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was also charged with the alternative count of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to Section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. The Senior Principal Magistrate, Karatina found the respondent guilty of the main count of defilement and sentenced him to serve 20 years imprisonment as per Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8128 8128 On appeal, the High Court held that the conviction was safe as the key elements of the offence, that is penetration, that the victim was a child and the positive identification of the perpetrator, were proven satisfactorily. Further, the High Court held that the Trial Court indeed considered the respondent’s defence, which defence, in any event, did not displace the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the Court upheld it stating that the same was proper in view of the seriousness of the offences and the age of the victim at the time of the offence and the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, to wit, that the sentence, upon conviction, is not less than 20 years. Unrelenting, the respondent lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal on the principal basis that the sentence of 20 years was harsh and excessive. The Court of Appeal held that the rationale in the case of Muruatetu & Another vs Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 Others (Amicus Curiae) (Petition 15 & 16 of 2015) (Consolidated) [2017] KESC 2 KLR was applicable mutatis mutandis to mandatory sentences under the Sexual Offences Act. Consequently, the Court of Appeal held that a mandatory sentence for a sexual offence violates an accused person’s right to fair trial and dignity and substituted the 20-year sentence with a 15-year sentence. Aggrieved, the Director of Public Prosecutions lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal acted without jurisdiction and violated the doctrine of stare decisis. Issues (i) Whether the Court of Appeal assumed original jurisdiction on constitutional matters not raised at the High Court, hence acted ultra vires and without jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the Court of Appeal’s determination and application of the Muruatetu Case and Muruatetu Directions on mandatory sentences was a violation of the doctrine of Stare Decisis. (iii) Whether mandatory sentences are conceptually different from minimum sentences. (iv) Whether courts had discretion to impose sentences below the minimum mandatory sentences as prescribed by the Sexual Offences Act. Holding (i) To the extent that the Court of Appeal handled the issue of the unconstitutionality of the sentence imposed, it acted in excess of its appellate jurisdiction under Article 164(3) of the Constitution since this was not an issue before the High Court and neither was it an issue before the Court of Appeal. (ii) Article 163(7) of the Constitution elevates the principle of stare decisis to a constitutional dictate so that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in Kenya and these courts cannot depart from the said decisions. (iii) The Court of Appeal violated the principle of stare decisis in applying the rationale in the Murutatetu Case despite the clear guidance issued by the Supreme Court in Muruatetu & Another vs Republic; Katiba Institute & 4 Others (Amicus Curiae) (Petition 15 & 16 of 2015) [2021] KESC 31 (KLR) that the Muruatetu Case did not invalidate the mandatory sentences or minimum sentences in the Penal Code, the Sexual Offences Act or any other statute. (iv) The term ‘minimum mandatory’ is inapplicable in Kenya since the two terms ‘minimum sentences’ and ‘mandatory sentences’ refer to distinct and different concepts. While ‘mandatory sentences’ are compulsory and must be issued as set out in statute, ‘minimum sentences’ set the floor, as opposed to the ceiling. (v) Before a declaration of unconstitutionality is made, there must be a specific plea that a section or sections of a statute or a statute are unconstitutional. This plea is then compared and tested against the edicts of the Constitution. A declaration of unconstitutionality may then be made based on the outcome of the exercise and the declaration of unconstitutionality ought to be accompanied by reasons. (vi) While Courts exercise discretion when meting out the appropriate sentences, it is Parliament that legislates, that is, it sets the parameters of sentencing for each crime in statute. Appeal allowed. ii. Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal continued to play a central role in clarifying the law in appeals from the High Court, the ELC and the ELRC. In the year under review, the Court addressed diverse questions spanning limits of testamentary freedom in succession law, exhaustion of administrative remedies before pursuing administrative justice in courts, the scope of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission’s mandate in setting public remuneration, the mandate of the Council of Legal Education, and the delineation of the place of local tribunals within the judicial system. Limits of Testamentary Freedom to Uphold a Married Daughters’ Right to Reasonable Provision Under Section 26 of the Law of Succession Act 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Dadhialla v Chaudri (Sued as Executor of the Estate of Gurdip Kaur Sagoo) & 2 others (Civil Appeal E309 of 2021) [2025] KECA 728 (KLR)) Brief Facts The appellant, a biological daughter of the deceased, filed an application under Section 26 of the Law of Succession Act seeking reasonable provision from her mother’s estate. The deceased’s will had excluded her, while providing for her daughters-in-law. The respondents, including the executor of the estate, argued that the appellant had already received substantial inter vivos gifts (allegedly totalling over Ksh 143 million) and that her exclusion was consistent with cultural and testamentary intent, reflecting her father’s prior will. The High Court dismissed her application. She appealed challenging the trial court’s reasoning and findings. Issue Whether the High Court erred in declining to make reasonable provision for the appellant under section 26 of the Law of Succession Act. Holding (i) The Court acknowledged the appellant as a dependant under section 29(a) of the Law of Succession Act and held that she need not prove financial need to qualify. (ii) It rejected the High Court’s inference that the appellant's father’s will dictated her mother’s testamentary decisions, stating that each will must stand on its own. (iii) While testamentary freedom is protected under section 5 of the Act, the Court emphasised that it must be exercised responsibly, especially where a child is excluded without explanation. (iv) The appellant had contested the nature and purpose of the alleged inter vivos gifts. The Court found no sufficient evidence proving she had been adequately provided for earlier. (v) The Court noted the vast estate value (Ksh 750 million) and the lack of valuation did not preclude a reasonable award. (vi) It declined to equalise distribution but ordered reasonable provision (Ksh 130 million), considering the circumstances and past benefits. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to reasonable provision of Ksh 130 million from her late mother’s estate. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies in Wildlife Injury Claims Kenya Wildlife Service v Kanini (Suing as the Next Friend to Edward Koome), (Civil Appeal 30 of 2020) [2024] KECA 1127 (KLR) Brief Facts A minor was bitten by a snake while herding goats on his family's farm near Murerwa National Park. His mother sued the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) at the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Maua for negligence, claiming the snake had left the park and attacked the child. KWS denied negligence, arguing snakes naturally exist in the area and the injury occurred on private land. KWS also raised a jurisdictional objection, stating that under section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013, the claim ought to have been filed with the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee and not the courts. The Magistrate’s court allowed the claim and awarded the respondent KSh 3 million in general damages. The High Court upheld the judgment, prompting KWS to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Issue (i) Whether the appellant had led a case that warranted the Court of Appeal to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. (ii) Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. (iii) Whether the trial court awarded excessive damages. (iv) Whether the appeal was merited. Holding 1. Section 25(1) of the Wildlife Act provides a specialised mechanism for compensation via the County Wildlife Committee, with structured verification and approval by the Cabinet Secretary. 2. Despite the use of the word “may” in the statute, the Court held that this created a mandatory obligation to first use the administrative process before resorting to courts. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8130 8130 3. The Court reaffirmed the exhaustion doctrine and ruled that the internal dispute resolution mechanism under the Act must be strictly followed unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not shown in this case. 4. The failure to pursue or follow up on the administrative route meant the court lacked jurisdiction. Appeal allowed. The suit was dismissed with costs. The High Court judgment and the Chief Magistrate’s Court award were set aside. The Scope and Reach of the SRC Mandate Over Public Sector Remuneration in Statutory Bodies Salaries and Remuneration Commission v Kenya Union Commercial Food and Allied Workers & 2 others (Civil Appeal E489 of 2020), [2025] KECA 402 (KLR) Brief Facts The Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers filed a petition challenging a 2012 circular issued by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) which required public institutions to consult SRC before negotiating or concluding collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The dispute arose when SRC blocked implementation of a CBA between the union and the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), citing its constitutional mandate under Article 230. The union argued that this infringed on the right to collective bargaining under Articles 36 and 41 of the Constitution. The Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) agreed, holding that SRC had no jurisdiction over NSSF, and that NSSF employees were not public officers. Issues (i) Whether employees of NSSF were public officers and thus their salaries and emoluments were subject to the jurisdiction of the SRC. (ii) Whether NSSF was a state corporation and therefore a public office within the meaning of the Constitution. (iii) What were the requirements for the salaries and remuneration of employees of a body or organisation to fall within the ambit of the SRC. Holding i. NSSF, although self-financing, is a state corporation established under statute, funded by public contributions, and subject to audit by the Auditor-General. ii. Applying a purposive and harmonised interpretation of Articles 206 and 260 of the Constitution, the Court held that “monies provided by Parliament” includes funds authorised through Acts of Parliament such as the NSSF Act. iii. Employees of state corporations like NSSF, whose salaries are drawn from public funds authorised by statute, are public officers. iv. The ELRC had misinterpreted the Constitution by narrowly construing the term “public funds” to exclude such institutions. v. SRC's role in advising on and regulating public sector remuneration is binding and applies to all state and public officers, including those in state corporations. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that NSSF is a public office and its employees are public officers whose remuneration falls under SRC’s jurisdiction. The reach of the mandate of the Council of Legal Education and liberalisation of the Advocates Training Programme Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 others (Civil Appeal E625 of 2023) [2025] KECA 460 (KLR) Brief Facts The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Kenya School of Law’s (KSL) exclusive provision of the Advocates Training Programme (ATP), arguing that the Council of Legal Education (CLE) had failed in its statutory duty to license other legal education providers. He relied on findings from a 2016 Legal Sector Taskforce Report recommending liberalisation and decentralisation of the ATP due to quality concerns and overcrowding at KSL. The High Court had dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. Issues (i) Whether the CLE had failed or refused to fulfil its statutory mandate under the Legal Education Act to develop a regulatory framework and license other institutions to offer the ATP. (ii) Whether section 16 and the Second Schedule to the KSL Act were inconsistent with section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, thus violating the rule of law, legal certainty, and academic progression. Holding 1. The Court found that the CLE was under a clear statutory obligation to develop a licensing framework for ATP providers under section 8(3)(a) of the Legal Education Act. 2. Although the CLE argued that no institution had applied for licensing, the Court held that the absence of regulations created a barrier to such applications. 3. The Court also found that the conflicting provisions between the KSL Act and the Legal Education Act created legal uncertainty and violated constitutional principles under Article 10. The Legal Education Act, being more specific and newer legislation governing licensing and regulation of legal education, takes precedence. The appeal was allowed. The High Court’s decision was set aside and replaced with an order granting the reliefs sought in the original petition. Jurisdiction of Employment and Labour Relations Court to Entertain a Claim Involving a Constitutional Office Holder Attorney General & Another v Muiu & Another (Civil Appeal E146 of 2021) [2025] KECA 816 (KLR) Brief Facts The 1 st respondent was appointed as a Commissioner at the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) in 2012 for a six-year term. While on an official benchmarking tour abroad in 2013, he suffered a stroke and was hospitalised. Upon return, he continued receiving treatment and did not report back to duty until his term lapsed in 2018. In 2014, the NPSC directed the stoppage of his salary and medical cover, prompting the 1 st 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE respondent to file a constitutional petition at the ELRC. He sought declarations that the stoppage of his remuneration was unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 27, 41, and 250(8) of the Constitution. The ELRC ruled in his favour, finding that the salary stoppage was unlawful and ordered the appellants to pay Ksh 35,145,000 in withheld salary. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. Issue Whether the ELRC had jurisdiction to entertain a petition where the terms of employment were underpinned by the Constitution and not the Employment Act. Holding 1. Commissioners of independent constitutional commissions, such as the 1 st respondent, are not governed by ordinary employment law, but by constitutional provisions. 2. The appointment, remuneration, and removal of such officeholders are sui generis and outside the scope of Section 12 of the Employment Act. 3. The ELRC had wrongly assumed jurisdiction by entertaining the petition, even though the respondent’s contract and remuneration were constitutionally protected under Article 250(8). 4. The ELRC lacked jurisdiction to determine the dispute, as it related to a constitutional office and not a traditional employer-employee relationship governed by the Employment Act. 5. The appropriate forum was the High Court of Kenya under Articles 22, 23, and 165 of the Constitution, not the ELRC. Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the ELRC set aside. Local Tribunals are Subordinate Courts and Ought to be Under the Judiciary Attorney General v Okoiti & 3 others (Civil Appeal E416 of 2021) [2025] KECA 309 (KLR) Brief facts The petition at the trial court was based on the contention that although local tribunals fell under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution, many of them were under the direct control and regulation of the Executive and that infringed on the principle of separation of powers. At the trial court, the st respondent sought for, among other orders, a declaration that tribunals were subordinate courts under the Judiciary and that the Judicial Service Commission was exclusively responsible for appointing and removing members of the tribunals, for establishing their rules of procedure, and for doing anything incidental thereto to ensure their smooth operations as courts of law. The trial court allowed the petition, holding that local tribunals must be transited to the Judiciary and the appointment and removal of their members be undertaken by the Judicial Service Commission. In addition, the court directed the Attorney General and Parliament to take proactive steps within their respective dockets towards ensuring the enactment of the Tribunals Bill with a view of transiting the local tribunals to the Judiciary. Moreover, the court directed the Attorney General to file affidavits within 6 months of the judgment detailing the steps taken to enact the Bill into law. It is this decision that prompted the appeal to the Court of Appeal. Issues 3. Whether the tribunals contemplated in Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution ought to be under the Judiciary. 4. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant an order of structural interdict. Holding 1. Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution applied to all local tribunals contemplated thereunder whether new or existing. Therefore, local tribunals ought to be under the Judiciary. 2. Article 169(2) of the Constitution did not prescribe timelines within which legislation contemplated thereunder had to be enacted. However, the fact that the Constitution itself enjoined Parliament to enact legislation conferring jurisdiction, functions and powers on subordinate courts established under Article 169(1), was a clear manifestation of the seriousness with which the drafters of the Constitution treated such legislation. For the realisation of the constitutional right to access justice under Article 48 of the Constitution, it was imperative that the enactment of an instrument conferring jurisdiction, functions and powers on subordinate courts be treated with urgency. 3. In the absence of prescribed timelines for enacting legislation pursuant to Article 169(2) of the Constitution, Article 259(8) of the Constitution came into play to compel the enactment of the contemplated legislation to be undertaken within a reasonable timeline. More than 10 years delay in enacting legislation geared towards the realisation of a constitutional right, in the instant case, the right of access to justice, was unreasonable. 4. The High Court had the jurisdiction to ensure that its decision was implemented by way of structural interdicts. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. iii. High Court The High Court continued to serve as the engine of constitutional enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights. The Court’s decisions addressed far-reaching questions on socio-economic rights, administrative justice, fair trial, and governance, including judgments on the constitutionality of national legislation such as the Affordable Housing Act, the decriminalisation of attempted suicide, and the protection of judicial independence. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8132 8132 Guidelines to be Followed Where Counsel for Victims Wish to Cross-Examine Prosecution Witnesses Republic v Hassan (Criminal Case E070 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 11684 (KLR) (3 October 2024) Brief facts The victim’s advocates sought to cross-examine the prosecution witness. This was objected to by the counsel for the accused arguing that only the defence should cross-examine prosecution witnesses and further, that the victims’ counsel right of participation was limited to re-examination of witnesses. That view was shared by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) who also argued that the Supreme Court had settled the law on the victims’ participation in proceedings and that the role was restricted. Counsel for the victim stated that nothing in the law prevented him from cross- examining a state witness since the Evidence Act provided for only two modes of examination; examination in chief and cross-examination, and therefore, the state having led evidence in chief, the victims’ counsel could only cross-examine the witness. Issues (i) What were the guidelines to be followed where counsel for victims wished to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. (ii) Whether allowing counsel for victims to cross-examine prosecution witnesses without any limitation violated the accused person’s right to a fair trial. (iii) What were the guidelines governing a trial court on the participation of a victim in criminal proceedings. Holding 1. The participation of victims in criminal proceedings must be laid down during the pre- trial conference as a crime was not only an injury against the affected individual(s) but also against society. 2. The guidelines to be followed where counsel for victims wished to cross-examine prosecution witnesses are as follows: (i) Counsel for the victims must make an application before or during the pre-trial conference indicating the desire to examine witnesses. (ii) The application shall disclose the specific areas that counsel would like to pursue with the witnesses. (iii) The application shall state how the intended questions were relevant. (iv) If allowed by the court, the questions shall be shared with the other parties before examining the witnesses. (v) If there were any objections, parties shall raise the objections before the witness testified. (vi) Counsel shall limit the examination to the identified areas. Application partly allowed. Constitutionality of the Affordable Housing Act 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Benjamin & 4 others v The Cabinet Secretary Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development & 4 others; National Land Commission & 16 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E154, E173, E176, E181, E191 & 11 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEHC 13060 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) Brief Facts The consolidated petitions challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Housing Act that sought to create a framework for affordable and institutional housing. Petitioners argued that several provisions of the Act, including the 1.5% income levy, the delegation of fund management, and the public participation process, violated constitutional rights. The petitioners took issue with the fact that public participation for an Act that was intended to affect all Kenyans was only conducted in 19 counties and not in all the 47 counties. They sought declarations of unconstitutionality, judicial review orders, and the refund of collected levies. Issues (i) Whether an opportunity was afforded to the public to air their views and adequately participate on the implementation of the Affordable Housing Act. (ii) Whether in passing national legislation, the National Assembly and Senate were required to conduct public participation in all 47 counties. Holding (i) Public participation did not necessarily mean that everyone had to express their opinions. Instead, there should be tangible evidence of a purposeful initiative to incorporate a variety of perspectives in the participation programme. (ii) The National Assembly and Senate had provided evidence to support their argument that they invited members of the public to take part in the exercise. Although the National Assembly and Senate focused on very targeted and specific stakeholders, it had also given an opportunity to the general public to submit memoranda and attend public stakeholder meetings. (iii) There was no requirement in the law that public participation be conducted in all 47 counties. (iv) The legislative process, including public participation, had been adequately conducted and the petitioners had failed to demonstrate violations of constitutional rights. Consequently, the court upheld the Act, allowing its full implementation. The court dismissed the petition. Criminalising Attempted Suicide is Unconstitutional Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 others v Attorney General; Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 others (Interested Parties); Law Society of Kenya (Amicus Curiae) (Constitutional Petition E045 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 6 (KLR) Brief facts The petitioners contended that section 226 as read with section 36 of the Penal Code, that criminalised attempted suicide, is unconstitutional. The petitioners’ case was that section 226 revictimised victims of mental illness which was manifested through attempted suicide. They alleged that the section violated the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of health and disability, the right to human dignity, the right of persons with disabilities, and the rights of the child. The petitioners asserted further that the provision impeded the right to the highest attainable standard of health as the stigmatisation associated with crime hindered the victims from seeking help hence was an obstacle to the right to equality before the law. The petitioners also contended that individuals who attempted suicide were persons with disabilities arising from mental health issues. The respondents contended that there had been various attempts to amend the Penal Code. As such, they argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over a policy/legislative issue that was before Parliament. The respondent and the 5 th and 6 th interested parties also argued that the impugned section was crucial to prevent self-harm especially by criminals. Issues (i) Whether section 226 as read with section 36 of the Penal Code that criminalised attempted suicide was unconstitutional for violating the rights to dignity, equality, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of health and disability. (ii) Whether the crime of attempted suicide was unconstitutional for denying the survivors the highest attainable standards of health as the stigmatisation associated with crime hindered the victims from seeking help. (iii) Whether persons who attempted suicide could be deemed to be suffering from a mental illness and thus lacking the intention (mens rea) to commit the crime of attempted suicide. Holding 1. The Mental Health Act together with the Kenya Mental Health Policy 2015-2030 recognised persons with mental illness as persons living with disabilities and defined a person with mental illness as a person diagnosed by a qualified mental health practitioner to be suffering from mental illness, and included a person with suicidal ideation or behaviour. Persons subject to section 226 of the Penal Code were persons suffering from mental illness. 2. Section 226 of the Penal Code existed notwithstanding the above definition of mental illness which included suicide ideation thereby making it a health issue. 3. Persons who attempted suicide were victims of mental illness and not criminals who possessed the requisite mens rea (intention) to commit the offence. The 5 th and 6 th interested parties had the power to amend or repeal the law to reflect the reality but had failed to do so. 4. Section 226 of the Penal Code was unconstitutional for violating articles 27, 28 and 43 of the Constitution. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8134 8134 Petition Allowed. A Marriage Based on Cohabitation Can Only Be Ripe for Registration After Declaration of its Existence by Courts MNN v SMM (Appeal E080 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 11757 (KLR) Brief facts The parties cohabited between 2007 to 2017 and had been blessed with children. In the pleadings, both parties referred to their relationship as a marriage. At the trial court the appellant sought, amongst others, an order that the marriage between her and the respondent be dissolved. The respondent filed an answer to petition and a cross-petition in which he prayed for, among other orders, a declaration that there was cohabitation between the parties leading to a presumption of marriage. The trial court dismissed the petition by stating that the presumption of marriage was a question of fact, subject to the requisite proof and that it had not been proved on a balance of probabilities. The trial court directed, amongst other orders, that either party should apply for registration as under section 3 of the Marriage Act before a petition for divorce could be filed and with respect to the issue of the union and that status quo be maintained for 90 days on physical and legal custody pending a suit before the children court. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal. The appeal challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court. Issues (i) What were the ingredients for proof of presumption of marriage by cohabitation. (ii) When did a marriage which was implied by cohabitation become ripe for registration. Holding i. Marriage which was implied by cohabitation could only be ripe for registration after declaration of its existence and that only the courts could do so. ii. Marriages through long period of cohabitation could not be termed as customary marriage as there was no inconsistency between the doctrine of presumption of marriage and the Marriage Act. iii. From the evidence on record, the custodial issue of the children had not been raised. It was not pleaded and was not addressed by the parties during their testimony or submissions before the trial court. A court of law could only grant that which was prayed for. iv. The trial court had no jurisdiction to determine issues of custody of the minors as the same was by law vested in a children court, a fact the trial court seemed to have acknowledged when it held that the status quo would remain for 90 days pending a suit in the children court. v. The mention of the children's matter was information whose disclosure was a requirement of the law. Parties were required to disclose any other proceedings pending before another court. Even if the trial court had been asked to make decision on the custody of the children, the trial court did not have powers to make orders in respect of a suit pending before a court of concurrent jurisdiction. vi. The trial court had no supervisory powers over the children court. In that regard, the trial court erred when it delved into the issues of the children of the marriage. Appeal allowed Failure to Appoint Judges Recommended by the Judicial Service Commission is a Breach of the Judges' Right to Fair Administrative Action Muchelule & 5 others v Attorney General; Judicial Service Commission (Interested Party) (Petition E311 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 12116 (KLR) Brief Facts The petitioners were recommended by the Judicial Service Commission for appointment as Judges of the Court of Appeal and Environment and Land Court on July 22, 2019. The President did not appoint the persons recommended and did not give written reasons for not doing so. The President later appointed seven of the 11 recommended judges of the Court of Appeal, leaving out the 1 st to 4 th petitioners. Aggrieved, they filed the instant petition contending their rights were violated. Issues (i) Whether the President in failing or refusing to appoint the petitioners as judges of the Court of Appeal and the Environment and Land Court after they had been recommended for appointment by the JSC violated their rights to fair administrative action. (ii) Whether the President in failing or refusing to appoint the petitioners as judges violated their right to equal benefit of the law and the full and equal enjoyment of rights. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Holding 1. The Presidential inaction or omission violated the petitioners’ right to fair administrative action guaranteed by Article 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution. Article 47(1) guaranteed every person the right to administrative action that was expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The President was required to appoint the petitioners within a reasonable time but did not. 2. The delay in appointing the petitioners violated the requirement of expedition and efficiency. The action was not lawful either because the Constitution did not give the President discretion when it came to the appointment of judges following recommendations by the JSC. Article 47(2) of the Constitution required that if a person’s right or fundamental freedom had been, or was likely to be adversely affected by an administrative action, the person had the right to be given written reasons for the action. 3. The President did not give any written reasons why he could not appoint the petitioners’ despite being recommended by the JSC. That was a violation of Article 47(2) of the Constitution. Petition allowed. A Kenya Defence Forces Officer Can Be Tried Either in the Courts Martial or in the High Court for the Offence of Murder Mugure v Attorney General & 3 others; Director of Military Prosecutions (Interested Party) (Petition E002 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 12449 (KLR) Brief Facts The petitioner, a Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) officer, challenged his arrest, detention and prosecution for murder in the High Court, asserting that jurisdiction lay with a Court Martial under the Kenya Defence Forces Act. He also contested a plea bargain between the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) and his co-accused, resulting in the withdrawal of the co-accused’s murder charges and their substitution with the lesser charge of being an accessory after the fact of murder. He also claimed that the plea agreement was prejudicial as the co accused became a prosecution witness against him. The petition sought declarations on jurisdictional issues, the procedural validity of the plea bargain, and alleged violations of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. Issues (i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to try a serving military officer for the offence of murder or whether the trial should be conducted by a Court Martial. (ii) Whether a plea bargain agreement entered into by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions with one of two persons accused of murder, which resulted in the charges of murder being withdrawn and substituted with the lesser charge of being an accessory after the fact of murder, was prejudicial to the Petitioner as the other accused. (iii) Whether the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had the authority to prosecute military personnel for offences under the Penal Code, or if prosecution should only be undertaken by the Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP) before a Court Martial. Holding (i) The petitioner was liable to be tried under either the Courts Martial or the High Court for the offence of murder. The only restriction was that he could not be tried in both court systems for the same offence. There was nothing to show, and neither had the petitioner alleged, that he had already been tried before a Court Martial in respect of the charge of murder he was facing. (ii) Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution bestowed upon the High Court unlimited original jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters. Section 213 of the Kenya Defence Forces Act made it clear that the DMP will only conduct prosecution before a Court Martial in respect of offences allegedly committed under Part VI. Murder is not one of the offences falling under Part VI. The DMP is not authorised to conduct prosecutions in civilian courts. (iii) The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution was a creation of the Constitution. The Kenya Defence Forces Act which creates the Office of Director of Military Prosecutions could not supersede the Constitution. The ODPP was mandated to prosecute any person before any court (other than a Court Martial). By commencing prosecution of the petitioner under the Penal Code, the ODPP effectively blocked the prosecution of the petitioner for the same offence by a Court Martial. (iv) The Victim Protection Act itself was silent on whether a person accused of a crime could also be considered a victim of the very crime of which he had been accused. It is an absurdity to claim that accused can also be a victim of the crime for which he/she is charged. (v) One could not claim to be a victim of the very crime he was charged with committing. The ODPP was perfectly entitled to consider and to enter into a plea agreement with the co-accused of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the persons alleged to have been killed were family members of the petitioner. There was nothing illegal and/or unprocedural in the ODPP securing plea agreements with one or more accused persons where several persons had been charged with the same offence. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8136 8136 Petition dismissed. The Grandparents and the Surviving Parent of a Minor Can Be Granted Joint and Legal Custody Over the Minor if it is in the Minor’s Best Interests DMO v TKT & another (Civil Appeal E059 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 3109 (KLR) Brief facts The appellant was the biological father of the minor while the respondents were the minor’s maternal grandparents. The appellant sued the respondents at the trial court seeking full custody of the minor. It was the appellant’s case that after the minor’s mother passed on, the respondents had taken the minor under their custody and had since denied him access to her. The appellant contended that he was in gainful employment and therefore capable of taking care of the minor. The respondents, on their part, asserted that they had been the sole caregivers of the minor following her mother’s death. They claimed that their daughter’s death was the subject of police investigations which indicated that she had died from poisoning. They contended that the appellant willingly handed over the minor to them following the death of her mother and that custody was not an absolute right as the circumstances of each case must be considered. Through a consent, parties agreed that the appellant be allowed access/visitation rights to the minor. The appellant was not successful at the trial court which, among other orders, granted legal and actual custody of the subject minor to the respondents. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Issue Whether the grandparents of a child could be granted the custody of a child upon the demise of the child’s mother where the child’s father was still alive. Holding 1. The overriding principle in children matters was the best interests of the child. The child’s interest was paramount when considering any issue involving children. That principle was embedded in Article 53(2) of the Constitution. Section 8 of the Children Act expounded on what the best interests of the child entailed. 2. The appellant was the biological father of the minor whose biological mother was deceased. The Children Act did not make provision for the granting of custody to grandparents in the event of the death of a parent. Stemming from section 123 of the Children Act, the appellant was the rightful person to be granted custody of the minor unless there existed valid reasons for making a different order. 3. A child of tender years, such as the minor in the instant case, required constant care and attention as she continued to grow and develop. That meant that such a child must be afforded an opportunity to enjoy the best care and be raised in a secure environment where she could be nurtured. The respondents had been living with the minor and taking care of her even before the death of her mother. No material was placed before the court to show that the respondents were incapable of taking care of the child or that the child was facing any challenges while under their care. 4. The appellant did not impress the court as a responsible father as he did not present any material to show that he had been providing for the minor while she was in her grandparents’ custody. On the contrary, it was DW2, the minor’s aunt who demonstrated that not only was she sending monthly support to the respondents to cater for the minor, but that she had also taken out an insurance cover for the minor. 5. The court took cognisance of the law on the right of the surviving biological parent to have first priority on custody and access to the child unless there were compelling reasons to hold otherwise. Alienating the minor from the care of her father would not be in her best interests. However, while the appellant demonstrated that he had what it took to take care for his daughter and provide for her financial needs, he did not actualise such capability by providing proof that he took care of the child while she was in the custody of her grandparents. 6. The evidence from the appellant was that he would leave the minor under the care of his sister who resided in Githurai in Nairobi/Kiambu County while he worked in Nyamira County. In essence, the appellant intended to cede actual custody of the minor to his sister while he was in a far- flung county where he worked. The appellant conceded that he had not visited the minor even after the parties filed a consent on visitation rights. 7. The court could not ignore or wish away the respondents’ apprehension over the safety of the minor if given to the custody of the respondent considering that the minor’s own mother died while in the appellant’s house under unclear circumstances that had not been resolved. The appellant had two other children with different women but did not tender evidence to show that he catered for the children’s needs. Indeed, the appellant had another children’s case before another court involving one of children. The appellant did not strike the court as a person who had a stable home environment where he could raise the minor. 8. The appellant’s confirmation that he intended to leave the minor in the custody of his sister did not bode well for the interests of the minor who had all along been under the constant loving care of her grandparents from the time of her mother’s death. Removing the minor from a stable home environment that had so far been provided for her by her maternal grandparents and taking her to a totally new place would not serve her best interests considering that she was only about four years as at the time of delivery of the judgment. Section 103 of the Children Act outlined principles that must be considered by the court when making custody orders. 9. The respondents demonstrated their capability to take care of the minor by offering her a stable environment to grow and thrive. It would not be in the minor’s best interest to remove her from the loving care of her grandparents and hand her over to the care of the appellant’s sister. It would be appropriate to grant the parties joint legal custody of the minor since the appellant was her only surviving parent. The respondents were appointed as the minor’s guardians in accordance with the provisions of section 123(2) of the Children Act. Appeal partly allowed. Prisoner's Right to Access Education and Right to Access Study Materials Odhiambo v Officer in Charge, Kamiti Medium Prison & another (Judicial Review E006 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 14379 (KLR) (Judicial Review) 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Brief facts The applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison, beginning in 2018, at Kamiti Main Prison. While incarcerated, he pursued higher education, obtaining a Master’s in Business Administration from Mount Kenya University in 2022 and later enrolling in a Master of Science in Project Management. Prison authorities at Kamiti Main Prison facilitated his studies by granting access to study materials, a laptop, and an internet connection. On February 9, 2023, he was transferred to Kamiti Medium Prison, where he was denied similar academic support. His requests for access to study tools were met with disciplinary action. He alleged that the authorities sought to intimidate him into abandoning his studies. The applicant filed for judicial review, arguing that the denial of study facilities violated his constitutional rights, the Persons Deprived of Liberty Act, and international conventions. The respondents did not contest the application, leading the court to rule in the applicant’s favour. Issues (i) Whether the decision to deny a prisoner access to the infrastructure, study materials and such tools as were necessary for the applicant to continue and pursue a post-graduate Masters programme was a violation of the prisoner’s right to education, rights to freedom and security of the person and the rights of detained persons. (ii) Whether a prisoner’s loss of access of study materials to pursue a post graduate Masters programme due to being transferred from one prison to another violated the prisoner’s legitimate expectation that he would be provided with the materials till completion of the programme. (iii) Whether the transfer of a prisoner who had filed a suit against the prison while the suit was pending was in itself proof of intimidation of the prisoner by the authorities. Holding (i) The right to education was a constitutional right to which every person, including the applicant, was entitled. Article 20(5) of the Constitution empowered a court presiding over a dispute on the State’s failure in its responsibility to effectuate a socio-economic right, to demand evidence that would exonerate the State from liability. Socio-economic rights required the State to take legislative, policy and other measures to achieve them. (ii) The applicant could not be denied the right to education, or any other right in the Bill of Rights, for that matter, merely because he was imprisoned, since article 51(1) provided that persons who were imprisoned under the law, retained all the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights unless it could be demonstrated the applicant’s right to education was incompatible with the fact that he was imprisoned. There was no such suggestion that the applicant’s right to education was incompatible with his current disposition. If anything, the applicant had demonstrated that he had, in the past, obtained a degree, in a course which he enrolled while serving his prison sentence. (iii) Section 18 of the Persons Deprived of Liberty Act enjoined institutions such as Kamiti Main Prison to take all practical and reasonable measures to facilitate enjoyment of the right to education. (iv) When Kamiti Main Prison administration approved the applicant’s enrolment onto educational courses and provided him with such infrastructure and tools as were necessary for him to pursue the courses he registered for, it was not doing anything out of the ordinary; neither was it extending to the applicant unwarranted favour. The prison authority was simply complying with the law to which it was bound and from which it could not resile. (v) The existence of a legitimate expectation may give standing to seek permission to apply for judicial review; it may also mean that the authority ought not to act so as to defeat the consequence of the expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify it doing so. Legitimate expectation may also mean that, if the authority proposed to act contrary to the legitimate expectation, it must afford the person either an opportunity to make representations on the matter, or the benefit of some other requirement of procedural fairness. A legitimate expectation may, however, cease to exist either because its significance has come to a natural end or because of action on the part of the decision-maker. (vi) The applicant’s expectation that Kamiti Medium Prison would emulate Kamiti Main Prison and continue to provide him with the space, facilities and the necessary tools to pursue his education was not remote. The previous approvals by the prison authorities of the applicant’s requests and their facilitation of his education was enough representation to the applicant that having been treated in a certain way, he would be treated the same way for as long as he was pursuing his education in prison. (vii) Assuming there was no other legal basis upon which the applicant could claim such treatment, the applicant would still have been expectant to be treated the same way on the strength of the representation or promise made by the prison authorities and from consistent past practice. The past conduct of the prison authorities counted. But over and above the factual basis upon which the legitimate expectation could be inferred, it had been demonstrated that there was a solid legal basis upon which the applicant legitimately expected to be provided with the necessary space and resources for the pursuit of his post-graduate degree course. (viii) It had been demonstrated that there was not only an express, clear and unambiguous promise given by the prison authorities but also that, prior to his transfer to Kamiti Medium Prison, prison authorities had consistently approved the applicant’s quest of education and facilitated him to the extent that was necessary. The representation by the respondents was not merely one that they were competent to make or could lawfully make, but it was a legal obligation they were enjoined to discharge being an expectation that had a constitutional and statutory underpinning. Application allowed. The Impact of Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act In re Estate of Natha Kimaiyo Tarus (Probate & Administration 68 of 2006) [2024] KEHC 16401 (KLR) Brief facts The dispute arose between the petitioner and the objector over the confirmation and distribution of the deceased’s estate. On July 26, 2024, the court issued a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant to the Petitioner. However, the objector challenged the confirmation, arguing that some properties and 2000 shares in Chipokaa House Limited had been omitted. The objector subsequently filed an application that sought a stay of execution of the grant’s confirmation pending appeal. Issue (i) What were the conditions upon which a court could issue a stay of execution for a certificate of confirmation of grant? 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8138 8138 (ii) Whether section 76 of the Law of Succession Act which allowed revocation or annulment of a grant under specific grounds such as fraud, concealment, or procedural defects, should be amended to stop abuse by applicants who filed endless applications, thus ensuring that succession cases did not drag on indefinitely. Holding i. In examining an application for stay of execution of the certificate of confirmation of grant, the court must consider several interconnected aspects that form the foundation of any stay application in succession matters. The court must first determine whether the mere filing of a Notice of Appeal provided sufficient basis for granting a stay, particularly given the special nature of succession proceedings. That analysis naturally led to the question of whether the applicant had demonstrated the substantial loss that would result without the stay. Those considerations ultimately guided the court in determining whether the threshold for preserving the subject matter pending appeal had been met, bearing in mind the delicate balance between protecting appellate rights and ensuring the orderly administration of estates. ii. Parties tended to exploit the provisions of section 76 of the Succession Act on revocation or annulment of the already issued instrument to govern distribution of the estate contrary to the letter or spirit of the statute. It was never the letter or spirit of the law to create a provision which defeated the entire objective of identifying the free property of the deceased together with the legitimate beneficiaries and have it distributed within a period of six months. In essence these proceedings filed intergenerationally and ad-infinitum to annul or revoke the Certificate of Confirmation without adherence to the provisions of the Act, were an abuse of the court process. iii. The time limit for the making of the grant of representation and subsequent confirmation of grant was strict. The Court stated that the time had come for the Legislature to revisit and legislate an amendment touching on the ambiguity in the language under section 76 of the Succession Act, that a grant issued could be revoked or annulled at any time. Unauthorised Loan Through a Registered Number by a Telecommunications Service Provider Does Not Automatically Establish Liability on the Part of the Service Provider Wachira v Safaricom Company Limited (Civil Suit E005 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 16425 (KLR) Brief facts The plaintiff's grievance stemmed from the alleged unauthorised registration of a mobile phone number under his national identity card, which he claimed led to unauthorised borrowing and subsequent adverse credit listing. The plaintiff sought for, among other orders, a declaration that the registration of the mobile number was unlawfully and illegally done; a declaration that the defendant was under obligation to pay any loans that may have been taken by the mobile number; a declaration that the defendant was obliged to clear the plaintiff from any adverse credit listing arising from any transaction involving the mobile number; and general damages for personal data breach, mental anguish and damage to the plaintiff’s reputation as a credit worthy citizen. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s allegations in their entirety and stated that the plaintiff’s national identity card was verified by the defendant during registration of the mobile number and that the defendant does not issue any loans nor list or forward anyone’s name for listing at a credit reference bureau (CRB). The defendant also claimed that it did not have control over the use of mobile numbers once registered by subscribers and thus sought the dismissal of the suit with costs. Issues 1. Whether a telecommunications service provider was automatically liable for unauthorised lending through a mobile number alleged to have been illegally registered. 2. Whether telecommunications service providers were liable for the actions of third parties using their platform. 3. Under what circumstances could a telecommunications service provider be liable for information shared by a third party to credit reference bureaus? 4. What were the requirements for one to succeed in a defamation suit? Holding 1. Mobile money services in Kenya operated through a complex interplay of telecommunications infrastructure, financial services platforms, and third- party applications. The telecommunications provider's role was primarily to provide the communication infrastructure and maintain the integrity of subscriber identification. When a subscriber registered a SIM card, that created a basic telecommunications service relationship. Any subsequent financial services, including mobile loans, operated as distinct services provided by separate entities through the telecommunications platform. The platform provider could not reasonably monitor or control all transactions conducted through third-party applications, just as a road builder could not control the conduct of those who used the road. 2. The defendant's role was primarily that of a telecommunications service provider and platform facilitator. While the defendant facilitated various services through its platforms, it maintained distinct boundaries in its operations and responsibilities. The defendant operated as an independent entity with its own security and verification processes, and while it provided platforms that third parties may use for mobile money services, it did not bear responsibility for those services' security, credit risk, or CRB listing decisions. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE 3. When examining the chain of events from SIM card registration to credit listing, there were multiple independent actors making autonomous decisions. The lending institutions made their own decisions about extending credit, borrowers chose to take loans, and CRBs made independent listing decisions. Each of those actions occurred without the defendant's direct involvement or control. 4. Causation must be both factual and legal. The mere fact that unauthorised lending occurred through a mobile number did not automatically establish liability on the part of the telecommunications provider. 5. The clear delineation of services and responsibilities made it problematic to hold the defendant liable for subsequent lending decisions and credit listings by independent third parties. To hold the defendant liable in the circumstances would set a concerning precedent that could fundamentally alter the landscape of telecommunications services in Kenya. Such a finding would effectively require telecommunications providers to monitor and assume responsibility for all subsequent uses of their services by third parties. That would not only be impractical but would likely impede the development of digital financial services that had proved crucial to Kenya's economic growth. 6. The defendant, like other telecommunications providers, operated within a carefully regulated framework. Their primary obligation was to ensure proper SIM card registration and maintain reliable telecommunications services. The witness statement demonstrated that they fulfilled those obligations through their verification processes. Extending their liability beyond those core responsibilities to encompass the independent actions of third-party financial services would blur important regulatory distinctions and potentially create overlapping and conflicting obligations. 7. While it might be foreseeable that mobile numbers could be used for financial services, it stretched the bounds of reasonable foreseeability to suggest that a telecommunications provider should anticipate and prevent all potential misuse of their services by third parties. The defendant's witness had clearly articulated that once a SIM card was properly registered, they could not control its subsequent use. That limitation was not a disclaimer of responsibility but rather recognition of practical and technological realities. 8. The defendant had demonstrated compliance with its regulatory obligations in the registration process, and had established that it operated within clear boundaries that did not extend to financial lending or credit reporting. To hold them liable for the independent actions of third parties who utilised their platforms would extend liability far beyond established legal principles and practical business realities. 9. The plaintiff had not established a sufficient causal link between the defendant's actions and his alleged damages. While the plaintiff suffered inconvenience and potential damage to his credit standing, those injuries could not be legally attributed to the defendant's actions or omissions in the SIM card registration process. Claim dismissed. Access to Information as Provided for Under Article 35 of the Constitution; Requests Need Not Be Justified Kenya Human Rights Commission & another v Attorney General & another; Law Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E179 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 15702 (KLR)) Brief Facts The petitioners alleged that the respondents had failed to provide information regarding international and bilateral loans procured by Kenya, contrary to Article 35 of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right to access information. The petitioners requested specific details from the National Treasury, including sovereign bond agreements, a list of bond holders, and the utilisation of bond proceeds. The National Treasury received the request but failed to respond within the statutory 21-day period under the Access to Information Act. The Commission on Administrative Justice intervened, but the information was still not provided. A response from the National Treasury was eventually issued stating that some information was publicly available while other details, such as individual bondholder identities, were protected under data protection laws. The petitioners contended that the National Treasury’s refusal violated transparency and accountability principles under Articles 10 and 201 of the Constitution. Issues i. What was the procedure for applying for information from a state organ under the Access to Information Act? ii. Whether the failure to provide the Treaties/Agreements/Contracts signed between Kenya and any other person, organ or institution was unconstitutional and a violation of the right to access information. iii. Whether persons seeking to obtain information from governmental institutions under the Access to Information Act had an obligation to justify why they needed the information. iv. Whether state organs were obliged to justify not granting access to information requests? Holding i. Article 35 of the Constitution provided for the right to access information. The Access to Information Act (The Act) was enacted to give effect to Article 35. Section 4 of the Act provided the process to be followed in order to obtain information held by the State or another person. It gave exemptions under section 6(1). ii. A person seeking to access information held by the State or private body was in the first instance required to address the request to the designated officer under section 7 of the Act and the request was made on an application under section 8(1) which provided details and sufficient particulars for the public officer to understand extent and nature of the information requested. iii. The public officer would under section 9 of the Act process the application and make a decision on the application as soon as possible. Where the applicant did not receive a response to an application within the period stated in subsection (1), the application was deemed to have been rejected as provided under section 9(6) of the Act. iv. The 2 nd respondent had not provided a proper justification for the denial of information sought by the petitioners. The 2 nd respondent asserted that the information was readily available in budget policy statements, however the court noted that what was contained in the budget policy statements were proposals for borrowing and not records of what had actually been borrowed. The information the petitioners sought were records of what had actually been borrowed, not proposals that may or may not have been actualised. v. According section 4 (2) of the Access to Information Act the right to the information was not affected by the reason the petitioner might have given in requesting for information held by the State. The petitioner need not to have justified the request since the State was under duty to provide the information on request by a citizen unless the State could validly justify its refusal to supply the information under section 6 of the Act. The State had not justified the non-supply except in a very limited way alleging that revealing the names of companies, institutions or names of persons that hold Kenya’s sovereign bond could breach privacy laws of investors in some countries. The court was careful not to gamble with a possibility that had potential of exposing Kenya to legal liability. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8140 8140 vi. The refusal to supply the information requested by the 2 nd respondent violated the right of access to information under Article 35(1) of the Constitution, the principle of openness and accountability in financial matters as provided for in Article 201(a) of the Constitution, and generally, the principles of transparency and accountability provided for under Article 10(2)(c) of the Constitution. Petition allowed. The Right to Property Does Not Extend to Any Property that has Been Found to have Been Unlawfully Acquired Assets Recovery Agency v Quorandum Limited (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E021 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 4870 (KLR) (Anti- Corruption and Economic Crimes) Brief Facts In an application for forfeiture where the applicants alleged that the Former Acting Chief Executive Officer of Youth Enterprise Development Fund fraudulently transferred funds after unlawfully entered into two contracts with the respondent to provide two consultancies on design of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) and ICT Strategy design but no services were rendered. The Applicant stated that the the Former Acting Chief Executive Officer and another official the late Bruce Odhiambo unlawfully authorised the change of signatories of the Youth Enterprise Development Fund account, and that the the Former Acting Chief Executive Officer unlawfully authorised payment of a total of Ksh 180,894,946 from YEDF account to that of the Respondent. Issues Whether the issuance of forfeiture order will violate the Respondent’s right to property. Holding 1. The Applicant is a body corporate with the mandate of identifying, tracing, freezing and recovering proceeds of Crime established under Section 53 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti- Money Laundering Act. 2. The applicant under Part VIII of the POCAMLA has the authority to institute civil proceedings for the recovery of proceeds of crime and seek orders for forfeiture of such assets to the State where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such assets are proceeds of crime. 3. Article 40 of the Constitution provides that the right to property under that article does not extend to any property found to have been unlawfully acquired. 4. The Applicant proved that, on a balance of probabilities, the funds held in the Respondent’s account had been fraudulently obtained and were proceeds of crime and thus liable for forfeiture. Forfeiture Orders Granted iv. Employment and Labour Relations Court The Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) continued to consolidate its jurisprudence on fairness, equality, and dignity in the workplace. Its decisions addressed issues such as violation of fair administrative action in the work place, protection of employee privacy, employer obligations in cases of dismissal of employee on account of mental incapacity, and the mandate of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission in determining stipends for interns. Violation of Objector’s Right to Fair Administrative Action Wasilwa v Judicial Service Commission; Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E237 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 281 (KLR) Brief facts The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) handling of a complaint against her. The complaint stemmed from her ruling in Kericho which nullified a land transfer linked to workers’ dues. The JSC initiated proceedings despite her objection that JSC lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for removal from office given that it concerned issues relating to the independent exercise of judicial authority. The JSC failed to consider her objection. The petitioner alleged that failure to consider her objection was a violation of the right to fair administrative action, violations of her right to judicial independence, and fair trial. Issue Whether failure by the JSC to consider an objection on its jurisdiction to entertain a petition which challenged the validity of a decision of a judge in exercise of their judicial authority was a violation of the objector’s right to fair administrative action. Holding 1. The resolution to entertain the complaint was an administrative decision amenable to review under Article 47 of the Constitution as read with the Fair Administrative Action Act. A Judge was immune as long as his or her conduct did not deliberately prevent parties in litigation from enjoying their rights as guaranteed by law. 2. The petitioner questioned the respondent’s jurisdiction to entertain a petition which challenged the validity of a decision of a judge exercising their judicial authority. The record did not indicate how the respondent addressed the threshold jurisdictional, competence or foundational questions posed by the petitioner. 3. The respondent proceeded as if no threshold objections had been raised. The objections went to the question of whether the respondent had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The respondent ought to have determined the threshold objection raised by the petitioner before proceeding to consider the substantive complaint. 4. It was incumbent upon the respondent to address these questions at the first opportunity. The objections were in the nature of a preliminary objection going to the element of jurisdiction. 5. The failure by the respondent to consider and decide on (or disclose the reasons thereof) on the threshold challenges raised by the petitioner constituted a fundamental legal misstep not in tandem with the right to fair administrative action as contemplated by Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Petition allowed. Violation of an Employees’ Right to Privacy Mwangi v ABSA Bank Kenya PLC (Cause E065 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2399 (KLR) Brief Facts The respondent bank employed the claimant as a branch manager and then promoted him to a senior branch manager. On March 17, 2023, the claimant was issued with a notice of suspension. The claimant was alleged to have been involved in irregular unauthorised overdraft facilities advanced to some customers. Disciplinary proceedings commenced and upon conclusion, the claimant was issued with a letter of termination. The claimant was allowed a right of appeal. The claimant alleged that before the appeal could proceed for hearing, the respondent advertised for his position. He asserted that this meant that there was a premeditated position that his appeal would not be successful. The claimant further asserted that his employment was terminated on grounds of nepotism and a witch hunt against him for raising questions touching on three senior employees who castigated and victimised him. The claimant further alleged that, during his suspension, the respondent engaged a private investigator into his personal and private conduct who followed him in public, restaurants and pubs and also demanded to be supplied by different establishments with information in violation of his rights. The claimant alleged that the termination of employment was without due process and that the respondent had refused to pay his terminal dues. Issues i. Whether the termination process undertaken by the employer was flawed amounting to an unlawful termination. ii. Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court had jurisdiction to determine a claim for defamation, arising in a suit on wrongful termination. iii. Whether an employer could hire a private investigator to look into the private life of an employee. iv. Whether an employee was entitled to bonus that accrued and could have been awarded to him, for good performance, before the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. v. Whether an employee undergoing disciplinary proceedings was entitled to a salary increment awarded to all employees as part of implementation of the employer’s policy. Holding 1. Termination of employment was allowed under the provisions of sections 35, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act where the employer issued notice upon the employee noting misconduct on the grounds of poor work performance, incapacity or capability. Upon the notice, the employee must be allowed time to respond and to make his representations. 2. The banking sector was sensitive and highly regulated through its policies and the Central Bank of Kenya. Breach of fiduciary duty extended to third party and the conduct of the claimant justified the sanction taken and termination of employment. Similarly, certain positions such as a branch manager of a bank, attract a high calling of integrity and financial probity. As branch manager, the claimant had greater accountability beyond that of his junior staff. 3. In Employment Law, defamation took place when the Employer publicises or causes to be publicised, statements which stigmatise the employee. The manner of dismissal and the negative publicity attached to the claimant had the potential to damage his employability. In employment-related matters, defamation was based on the old tort of defamation but with a new spin; the employee’s injured or damaged employability and not merely the personal stigmatisation must be compensated. 4. Even in an employment context, protection of the employee privacy was imperative. Protecting privacy was critical for an individual to lead an autonomous, independent life, enjoy mental happiness, develop a variety of diverse interpersonal relationships, formulate unique ideas, opinions, beliefs and ways of living and participate in a democratic, pluralistic society. 5. The conduct of the respondent, leading investigations into the claimant’s private life in the context of matters ongoing at the workplace, was not justified. No basis was given for such conduct. Engaging in private investigations and then failing to bring such matters to the claimant to address as an employee was not justified. His constitutional rights under Article 31 were breached by the respondent. 6. In employment and labour relations, damages could be awarded to an employee under the provisions of Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. The demands of social justice must be weighed carefully, against the needs of economic development. Ultimately, the purpose of compensatory awards was not to punish errant employers, however egregious their decisions against their employees might have been. The objective was to ensure economic injury suffered by the employee was adequately redressed. 7. The court noted that the bonus accruing to the claimant for good performance related to the year 2022, before disciplinary proceedings were brought to the claimant’s attention. The court held that the announced bonus could not be negated after the fact of its communication. Going back to sanction him and deny him a benefit previously accrued was to engage in unfair labour practices. 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8142 8142 Claim allowed. An Employer’s Duty Before Dismissal on Grounds of Mental Incapacity Waweru (Suing as Next Friend and Mother of Grace Wambui Waweru) v Central Bank of Kenya (Cause E888 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 13585 (KLR) Brief facts The claimant instituted the suit on behalf of her daughter who was employed by the Central Bank of Kenya as subordinate staff from 2009. In 2018, the claimant’s daughter was diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder and schizoaffective disorder, conditions that impaired her executive functions. Despite the respondent’s knowledge of her mental health challenges, she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, culminating in her termination in 2020. The claimant contended that the respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodations or adequate medical support, as required under the law. The respondent, in its defense, maintained that the employee was afforded medical care and due process during disciplinary proceedings related to absenteeism. Issues i. Whether an employer that dismissed an employee due to mental incapacity/injury had the burden to investigate the extent of the incapacity/injury and all the possible alternatives short of dismissal. ii. Whether the failure of an employer to accommodate an employee with a declining mental state was indirect discrimination. iii. Whether dismissal from employment due to mental incapacity where the mental state was not investigated by the employer and where the employer did not take measures to accommodate the employee due to the mental state was unfair. iv. Whether subjecting a mentally incapacitated employee to disciplinary proceedings without accommodating their mental condition was inconsiderate and would result in an unfair hearing. Holding 1. The claimant was an employee of the respondent and had mental health related issues which were known to the respondent. They supported the claimant and accorded her medical help. She had lucid moments at the time they issued her with notice to show cause and also subjected her to a disciplinary hearing. 2. The claimant had lucid moments at the time of hearing but there was no medical evidence to show that indeed she was in a fine state of mind to enable her defend herself. The hearing envisaged was such that the employee had an opportunity to defend herself and their state of mind must be healthy in order to comprehend what was happening. 3. The respondents knew the claimant was unwell but they still asked her to appear for a hearing which was inconsiderate in view of the claimant’s mental state. Other than the claimant not being accorded a proper hearing, the claimant being mentally unwell deserved some preferential treatment; what is referred to as reasonable accommodation. 4. The onus was on the respondent to investigate the extent of the incapacity or the injury and all the possible alternatives short of dismissal. There was no evidence that investigations were conducted on all other employees during that period and hence he was subjected to different treatment which emanated from his disability. 5. The respondent also failed to demonstrate that they tried to accommodate the appellant in her current state. The actions by the respondent amounted to indirect discrimination due to differential treatment. Whereas the respondents accommodated the claimant by allowing her attend medical treatment which was indeed part of the medical scheme, there was no indication that they made adequate reasonable effort to accommodate her. 6. The respondent proceeded to hear the claimant casually and failed to help her alleviate her problem. Indded, the report from the doctor indicted that her work made her mental situation worse. The respondents treated the claimant in a discriminatory manner due to her mental capacity and should therefore compensate her accordingly. The dismissal of the claimant was unfair and unjustified. Claim allowed. Salaries and Remuneration Commission Mandate to Review Interns’ Stipend Mike & 7 others v Salaries and Remuneration Commission & 41 others; Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists' Union & 77 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E003, E005, E042 (NRB) & E051 of 2024 & Cause E244 (NRB) of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELRC 2506 (KLR) Brief facts This consolidated petition arose from a decision by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) contained in a letter dated 13 March 2024, advising that stipends for interns in the Healthcare Internship Programme be capped at between Ksh 35,000 and Ksh 70,000, citing fiscal constraints. 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE The petitioners—comprising medical interns, their unions (notably KMPDU), and professional associations—challenged the decision, arguing that it violated rights to equality, non-discrimination, fair labour practices, fair administrative action, and collective bargaining. They pointed out that interns under the 2023 cohort had received up to Ksh 206,000 under existing Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), and the unilateral reduction undermined legitimate expectations and professional dignity. The SRC and the Ministry of Health defended the reduction, stating that the advice was constitutionally grounded in Article 230, was issued in response to the Ministry’s request, and was necessary due to insufficient budgetary allocations. They argued that the advice aimed to balance the interests of fiscal sustainability and universal internship placement. Issues i. Whether the disparity in stipends between the 2023 cohort of interns and the 2024 cohort amounted to discrimination. ii. Whether decision to reduce the stipends of medical interns was a violation of the intern’s right to fair administrative action. iii. Whether the SRC's advice was inconsistent with existing Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) and undermined the rights to fair labour practices and collective bargaining. iv. Whether the SRC and the Ministry of Health failed in their obligation to engage stakeholders, including unions and professional associations, before arriving at the decision to lower the stipends of medical interns. v. Whether the reduction in stipends was justified as a necessary fiscal measure under the Public Finance Management Act and aligned with constitutional principles of public finance management. vi. Whether the SRC exceeded its constitutional mandate by determining remuneration for healthcare interns without involving the Public Service Commission (PSC), which had the mandate to oversee the terms of service for public officers. vii. Whether section 61 of the Labour Relations Act, which empowered the Cabinet Secretary to make regulations on terms of employment for public sector employees, infringed on the constitutional mandates of the PSC and the SRC. viii. Whether medical interns in public service qualified as public officers under Article 260 of the Constitution. Holding (i) The Court reaffirmed that SRC’s mandate under Article 230(4) and the SRC Act includes setting and reviewing remuneration for state officers and advising on public officer benefits. (ii) The SRC’s stipend advice was lawfully issued in response to a request from the Cabinet Secretary due to budget shortfalls. The advice was consistent with the SRC Regulations and did not require mandatory consultation under the relevant provisions of the Regulations. (iii) The Court clarified that while CBAs remain binding, the Ministry, not the SRC, bears the responsibility for initiating remuneration review discussions when budget limitations arise. (iv) The Public Finance Management Act prohibits incurring expenditure beyond approved allocations. The 2024 cohort of interns could not be paid the prior stipend rates due to budgetary constraints. (v) Although the 2023 and 2024 cohorts received different stipend levels, the distinction was justified and did not amount to prohibited discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution. (vi) The Court emphasised that not all differential treatment was discriminatory and a legitimate budgetary objective can justify deviation from prior practice. (vii) The CBA provisions that placed interns in Job Group L created a legitimate expectation, but this could be lawfully modified due to changes in the Scheme of Service and budgetary realities. (viii) Article 41 rights (including the right to unionise and bargain collectively) were not violated, as no evidence showed interns were barred from union participation or representation. (ix) The interpretation of section 61 of the Labour Relations Act by the petitioners was misplaced. The section does not conflict with PSC’s or SRC’s roles, as it applies only where no CBA exists. (x) Medical interns, while serving in public facilities, are considered public officers for the limited purpose of remuneration advice under Article 260 of the Constitution. Petitions dismissed. v. Environment and Land Court The Environment and Land Court (ELC) deepened its role in safeguarding environmental integrity and sustainable land use. The Court clarified procedures for converting community and public land into conservancies, addressed the excision and de-gazettement of forest land, and reaffirmed the state’s fiduciary duty in managing public resources. Procedure to Convert Public/Community Land into Conservancy 6:16 PM THE KENYA GAZETTE 21st November, 2025 8144 8144 Osman & 164 others (Suing on Their Behalf and Behalf of Residents of Merti Sub-County, Chari, and Cherab Wards in Isiolo County) v Northern Rangelands Trust & 8 others (Petition E006 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 99 (KLR) Brief Facts The petitioners, representing residents of Chari and Cherab Wards in Merti Sub-County, Isiolo County, challenged the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) and other respondents, including the County Government of Isiolo, Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), and individual conservancy leaders, over the establishment of Cherab and Bulesa Biliqo community conservancies. These conservancies were initiated on unregistered community land, allegedly to support wildlife conservation and carbon offset projects, which had gained traction in Kenya as a means to combat climate change and generate revenue through carbon credits. However, the petitioners alleged that the conservancies were established without their consent or public participation, violating their constitutional rights to property, cultural heritage, and a clean and healthy environment. They claimed that the NRT, in collaboration with local leaders, deployed armed rangers, leading to tension, violence, and displacement, while also restricting access to grazing and cultural sites like the Kura Disan Owwo graveyard. The petitioners further argued that the County Government and the Ministry of Lands failed to facilitate the registration of community land under the Community Land Act, Cap 287 Laws of Kenya, leaving the land vulnerable to exploitation. It was alleged that this action disenfranchised marginalised groups, including women, youth, and persons with disabilities, and threatened their pastoralist livelihoods. Issues: i. Whether the establishment of the conservancies adhered to constitutional requirements for public participation under Articles 10 and 69 of the Constitution. ii. Whether the respondents violated the petitioners’ rights to unregistered community land, as protected under Article 63 of the Constitution and the Community Land Act, 2016. iii. Whether the Cherab and Bulesa Biliqo conservancies were operating legally, given the lack of registration and compliance with the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. iv. Whether the deployment of armed rangers by the NRT was lawful and compliant with the National Police Service Act and the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. v. Whether the conservancies infringed on the petitioners’ social, economic, and cultural rights, including equitable access to benefits from conservation projects. Holding 1. The establishment of the conservancies lacked meaningful public participation, violating Articles 10 and 69 of the Constitution. The court noted that the NRT’s evidence of community engagement, including an Environmental Impact Assessment and NEMA license, was prepared after the petition was filed and did not demonstrate prior consultation. 2. The Cherab and Bulesa Biliqo conservancies were deemed to be operating illegally due to non-compliance with the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and the Community Land Act. The court emphasised that community conservancies must adhere to statutory registration and governance requirements. 3. The County Government of Isiolo and the Ministry of Lands breached their statutory duties under the Community Land Act by failing to facilitate the registration of community land in Chari and Cherab Wards, leaving it susceptible to unauthorised use. 4. The NRT’s deployment of armed rangers was declared unconstitutional and illegal, as no evidence of their registration, vetting, or compliance with the National Police Service Act was provided. This raised concerns about public safety in a region prone to firearm proliferation. 5. The respondents’ actions infringed on the petitioners’ rights to property, livelihood, and cultural heritage, particularly by alienating grazing and cultural sites without community consent. Petition allowed. Excision and De-Gazettement of Forest Land and Settler’s Legitimate Expectations Tonui v Kenya Forest Service & 3 others; Law Society of Kenya & Others & 12 others (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition 11 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 6320 (KLR)) 21st November, 2025 THE KENYA GAZETTE Brief facts This case arose from consolidated constitutional petitions challenging forced evictions from the Eastern Mau Forest Complex. The petitioners were residents and allottees in government-established settlement schemes (e.g. Nessuit, Mariashoni, Sururu, Likia, Terit, Sigotik) and held title deeds issued by the Government following the purported excision of 35,301 hectares of forest land in 2001. The petitioners claimed that the state had reversed its position and treated them as illegal settlers despite prior approvals and title issuance. Meanwhile, the Ogiek community, an indigenous group, challenged the issuance of titles on grounds of ancestral and customary land rights, relying on a decision by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). The Government and Kenya Forest Service (KFS) argued that the excision was not lawfully completed, that titles were irregularly issued, and that evictions were justified for environmental protection and to safeguard the Mau Forest as a vital water tower. Issues i. Whether the 2001 excision and degazettement of 35,301 hectares of the Mau East Forest Complex was lawfully done under the Forest Act. ii. Whether persons allocated land and issued title deeds in settlement schemes had a legitimate expectation of tenure and protection. iii. Whether evictions of such persons without resettlement plans violated Article 43 on socio-economic rights. iv. Whether there was clarity on forest boundaries and distinction between forest land and settlement areas. v. Whether the Ogiek community had a constitutional and legal claim to indigenous land rights in the Mau Forest. vi. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to enforce decisions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. vii. Whether the activities of a non-gazetted multi- agency task force established to implement the ACHPR decision were valid in law. Holding (i) The Court held that the 2001 excision and degazettement of 35,301.01 hectares of Eastern Mau Forest was lawful.