Court adjournments and case burdens, and the implications for access to justice
Category: Court
By: Leo Kipkogei Kemboi,
Case Adjournments is one of the key issues that contributes to case backlogs because it reduces the efficiency of courts. An adjournment in a legal setting involves pausing or temporally stopping ongoing proceedings to be continued at a later time, date, or location. It may also indicate the end of the day’s proceedings. Parties involved in the case can request adjournments, or they may be initiated by the court itself due to reasons such as key individuals being unavailable, the requirement for additional evidence, or logistical concerns.[i]
Why do case adjournments and how it affects efficiency of courts and the additional case burden it bring to the Judicial system an important factor? Its due to the fact that a Judicial System is a creation of the Constitution which demands a significant level of efficiency that is close to 100% because it forbids undue delay of justice. Secondly, when public goods are not provided efficiently, they end up creating other systemic inefficiencies which creates an overall drag in the economy. The Constitution is an economic document because it outlines key institutions that direct economic activity and sets the initial conditions on how economic agents operate.
The judicial system functions as a public good due to its inherent characteristics of non-excludability and non-rivalry. It is accessible to all individuals without discrimination, ensuring that no one is excluded from seeking justice or resolving disputes through legal means. This inclusivity is evident in the wide outreach of judicial services across various regions, from rural villages to urban districts, ensuring access for everyone. The judicial process is non-rivalrous; each case is treated independently and does not impact others’ ability to seek legal remedies or benefit from the system. The judicial system’s ability to provide equal access to justice and its unimpeded benefits make it a public good essential for a functioning society (Lochav & Bhatacharjee, 2018).[ii]
Magistrates’ Courts handle the majority of matters (74.2%), followed by the High Court (11.5%), ELC (4.2%), Kadhis’ Courts (5.3%), Small Claims Courts (1.2%), Tribunals (1.3%), ELRC (1.9%), Court of Appeal (0.4%), and lastly the Supreme Court. The case burden here is primarily explained by the fact that the Magistrates Court is a court of first instance. A court of first instance is the court that first assumes jurisdiction over a case and is also considered the court where proceedings begin.[iii]
Magistrates’ Courts have the highest number of adjournments (175,881), followed by the High Court (18,576), ELC (7,247), ELRC (1,186), Small Claims Courts (2,015), Kadhis’ Courts (2,431), Tribunals (1,960), Court of Appeal (1,295), and Supreme Court. Magistrates’ Courts have the highest share of adjournments (83.5%), followed by the High Court (8.8%), ELC (3.4%), Small Claims Courts (1.0%), Kadhis’ Courts (1.2%), Tribunals (0.9%), ELRC (0.6%), Court of Appeal (0.6%), and Supreme Court as shown in the table below.
Magistrates’ Courts have the highest share of adjournments (83.5%), followed by the High Court (8.8%), ELC (3.4%), Small Claims Courts (1.0%), Kadhis’ Courts (1.2%), Tribunals (0.9%), ELRC (0.6%), Court of Appeal (0.6%), and lastly Supreme Court.
By dividing 210,592 adjournment of cases for 52 weeks, I find that they are at least 4050 case adjournments every week. That’s 101 cases for every working hour.
The reasons for adjournment can be broadly categorized into two main types: external (agency) reasons and internal (court) reasons as explained in the State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report Financial Year 2022/23. The External (Agency) Reasons include Parties not being present or ready, witnesses or reports not being prepared, advocates not being available, and prosecution not being ready or present are all examples of external reasons for adjournment. These factors are often beyond the immediate control of the court and may require better coordination and communication among stakeholders to mitigate. The Internal (Court) Reasons include Internal reasons for adjournment include the court being indisposed, judgments not being ready, and the court not sitting. These reasons are more within the court’s control and may indicate a need for improved administrative processes, scheduling, and resource management.
67 of every 100 cases are adjourned because of external reasons. 33 of 3all cases are adjourned because of internal reasons.
What does the Case Adjournment Numbers Mean for Access to Justice.
The analysis of court adjournments and case burdens reveals significant challenges in the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system, with implications for access to justice. Case adjournments, often resulting from both external and internal factors, contribute to case backlogs and reduce the efficiency of courts. In conclusion, I make the following policy recommendations.
- The Policymaking arm of the Judiciary (Judicial Service Commission) should strive to reduce adjournments levels through administrative efficiencies on the internal side, and for the external side require stringent adherence to court timetable unless with specific requirements.
- On the numbers side, cutting case adjournments by half within two years reduces case burdens on the court system. This could increase efficiency by availing more time that courts can use to handle cases.
[i] Legal Information Institute. (2021). adjourn. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adjourn#:~:text=Adjourn%20is%20the%20final%20closing
[ii] Lochav, M., & Bhatacharjee, M. (2018). Factors influencing the Efficiency of Judiciary A Public Good Provision. GSJ, 6(7). https://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/FACTORS-INFLUENCING-THE-EEFICIENCY-OF-JUDICIARY-A-PUBLIC-GOOD-PROVISION.pdf
[iii] oxfordreference. (2024). Court of First Instance. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095643675#:~:text=1%20A%20court%20in%20which,may%20be%20heard%20on%20appeal.
More Blogs
Mr. Trump and Kenya’s Macro
It has always been difficult to tie Mr. Trump’s statements to his subsequent policy actions. That fact qualifies any certainty in discerning his implications for Kenya’s macro now. But in three areas, the Kenyan macroeconomic authorities should be on high alert. The Kenya Shilling For much of 2024, the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK)has been […]
Is Kenya’s Tax System Efficient, Optimal, and Equitable?
In my new paper, “On Efficiency, Equity, and Optimal Taxation: Reforming Kenya’s Tax System,” I examine Kenya’s tax system through the lenses of efficiency, equity, and optimality and recommend policy recommendations. I try to look at how efficiently the system generates revenue without distorting economic activity (efficiency), how fairly the tax burden is distributed across […]
Gen Z Collective Action on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Introduction The Finance Bill 2024 in Kenya sparked a wave of collective action primarily driven by Gen Z, marking a significant moment for youth engagement in Kenyan politics. This younger generation, known for their digital fluency and facing bleak economic prospects, utilised social media platforms to voice their discontent and mobilise protests against the proposed […]
Two Immediate Monetary-Framework Imperatives for Mr. Mbadi
The credibility of Monetary Policy in Kenya is compromised at present by two factors: As we anticipated mid-year, inflation is headed below the target range for the first time; The 7-member Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) has four vacancies. In light of the former prospect, the MPC reduced the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) Policy Rate, […]
Important dates and Citizen Concerns During Budget Planning Phase for Fiscal Year 2025/2026
The Budget formulation and preparation process in Kenya is guided by a budget calendar which indicates the timelines for key activities issued in accordance with Section 36 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012.These provide guidelines on the procedures for preparing the subsequent financial year and the Medium-Term budget forecasts. The Launch of the budget […]
Court adjournments and case burdens, and the implications for access to justice
| Post date: Wed, Apr 3, 2024 |
| Category: Court |
| By: Leo Kipkogei Kemboi, |
Case Adjournments is one of the key issues that contributes to case backlogs because it reduces the efficiency of courts. An adjournment in a legal setting involves pausing or temporally stopping ongoing proceedings to be continued at a later time, date, or location. It may also indicate the end of the day’s proceedings. Parties involved in the case can request adjournments, or they may be initiated by the court itself due to reasons such as key individuals being unavailable, the requirement for additional evidence, or logistical concerns.[i]
Why do case adjournments and how it affects efficiency of courts and the additional case burden it bring to the Judicial system an important factor? Its due to the fact that a Judicial System is a creation of the Constitution which demands a significant level of efficiency that is close to 100% because it forbids undue delay of justice. Secondly, when public goods are not provided efficiently, they end up creating other systemic inefficiencies which creates an overall drag in the economy. The Constitution is an economic document because it outlines key institutions that direct economic activity and sets the initial conditions on how economic agents operate.
The judicial system functions as a public good due to its inherent characteristics of non-excludability and non-rivalry. It is accessible to all individuals without discrimination, ensuring that no one is excluded from seeking justice or resolving disputes through legal means. This inclusivity is evident in the wide outreach of judicial services across various regions, from rural villages to urban districts, ensuring access for everyone. The judicial process is non-rivalrous; each case is treated independently and does not impact others’ ability to seek legal remedies or benefit from the system. The judicial system’s ability to provide equal access to justice and its unimpeded benefits make it a public good essential for a functioning society (Lochav & Bhatacharjee, 2018).[ii]
Magistrates’ Courts handle the majority of matters (74.2%), followed by the High Court (11.5%), ELC (4.2%), Kadhis’ Courts (5.3%), Small Claims Courts (1.2%), Tribunals (1.3%), ELRC (1.9%), Court of Appeal (0.4%), and lastly the Supreme Court. The case burden here is primarily explained by the fact that the Magistrates Court is a court of first instance. A court of first instance is the court that first assumes jurisdiction over a case and is also considered the court where proceedings begin.[iii]
Magistrates’ Courts have the highest number of adjournments (175,881), followed by the High Court (18,576), ELC (7,247), ELRC (1,186), Small Claims Courts (2,015), Kadhis’ Courts (2,431), Tribunals (1,960), Court of Appeal (1,295), and Supreme Court. Magistrates’ Courts have the highest share of adjournments (83.5%), followed by the High Court (8.8%), ELC (3.4%), Small Claims Courts (1.0%), Kadhis’ Courts (1.2%), Tribunals (0.9%), ELRC (0.6%), Court of Appeal (0.6%), and Supreme Court as shown in the table below.
Magistrates’ Courts have the highest share of adjournments (83.5%), followed by the High Court (8.8%), ELC (3.4%), Small Claims Courts (1.0%), Kadhis’ Courts (1.2%), Tribunals (0.9%), ELRC (0.6%), Court of Appeal (0.6%), and lastly Supreme Court.
By dividing 210,592 adjournment of cases for 52 weeks, I find that they are at least 4050 case adjournments every week. That’s 101 cases for every working hour.
The reasons for adjournment can be broadly categorized into two main types: external (agency) reasons and internal (court) reasons as explained in the State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report Financial Year 2022/23. The External (Agency) Reasons include Parties not being present or ready, witnesses or reports not being prepared, advocates not being available, and prosecution not being ready or present are all examples of external reasons for adjournment. These factors are often beyond the immediate control of the court and may require better coordination and communication among stakeholders to mitigate. The Internal (Court) Reasons include Internal reasons for adjournment include the court being indisposed, judgments not being ready, and the court not sitting. These reasons are more within the court’s control and may indicate a need for improved administrative processes, scheduling, and resource management.
67 of every 100 cases are adjourned because of external reasons. 33 of 3all cases are adjourned because of internal reasons.
What does the Case Adjournment Numbers Mean for Access to Justice.
The analysis of court adjournments and case burdens reveals significant challenges in the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system, with implications for access to justice. Case adjournments, often resulting from both external and internal factors, contribute to case backlogs and reduce the efficiency of courts. In conclusion, I make the following policy recommendations.
- The Policymaking arm of the Judiciary (Judicial Service Commission) should strive to reduce adjournments levels through administrative efficiencies on the internal side, and for the external side require stringent adherence to court timetable unless with specific requirements.
- On the numbers side, cutting case adjournments by half within two years reduces case burdens on the court system. This could increase efficiency by availing more time that courts can use to handle cases.
[i] Legal Information Institute. (2021). adjourn. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adjourn#:~:text=Adjourn%20is%20the%20final%20closing
[ii] Lochav, M., & Bhatacharjee, M. (2018). Factors influencing the Efficiency of Judiciary A Public Good Provision. GSJ, 6(7). https://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/FACTORS-INFLUENCING-THE-EEFICIENCY-OF-JUDICIARY-A-PUBLIC-GOOD-PROVISION.pdf
[iii] oxfordreference. (2024). Court of First Instance. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095643675#:~:text=1%20A%20court%20in%20which,may%20be%20heard%20on%20appeal.
More Blogs
Mr. Trump and Kenya’s Macro
It has always been difficult to tie Mr. Trump’s statements to his subsequent policy actions. That fact qualifies any certainty in discerning his implications for Kenya’s macro now. But in three areas, the Kenyan macroeconomic authorities should be on high alert. The Kenya Shilling For much of 2024, the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK)has been […]
Is Kenya’s Tax System Efficient, Optimal, and Equitable?
In my new paper, “On Efficiency, Equity, and Optimal Taxation: Reforming Kenya’s Tax System,” I examine Kenya’s tax system through the lenses of efficiency, equity, and optimality and recommend policy recommendations. I try to look at how efficiently the system generates revenue without distorting economic activity (efficiency), how fairly the tax burden is distributed across […]
Gen Z Collective Action on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Introduction The Finance Bill 2024 in Kenya sparked a wave of collective action primarily driven by Gen Z, marking a significant moment for youth engagement in Kenyan politics. This younger generation, known for their digital fluency and facing bleak economic prospects, utilised social media platforms to voice their discontent and mobilise protests against the proposed […]
Two Immediate Monetary-Framework Imperatives for Mr. Mbadi
The credibility of Monetary Policy in Kenya is compromised at present by two factors: As we anticipated mid-year, inflation is headed below the target range for the first time; The 7-member Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) has four vacancies. In light of the former prospect, the MPC reduced the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) Policy Rate, […]
Important dates and Citizen Concerns During Budget Planning Phase for Fiscal Year 2025/2026
The Budget formulation and preparation process in Kenya is guided by a budget calendar which indicates the timelines for key activities issued in accordance with Section 36 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012.These provide guidelines on the procedures for preparing the subsequent financial year and the Medium-Term budget forecasts. The Launch of the budget […]