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
Why Policies Limiting Early Access to Retirement Savings are Misguided
Among the most concerning things in Kenya today is the relentless march of the state through laws and regulations and into areas that result in reduced autonomy of citizens. This march of the nanny state is predicated on the view that state agencies care for and know better than the citizen. In other words, citizens […]
Tracking Maisha Namba – Digital UPI: What is changing, and what are the key issues?
Maisha Namba refers to the unique personal identification number assigned to every Kenyan citizen upon registration, usually at birth. This number serves as a lifelong personal identity number. In this study by the IEA Kenya, the author examined the proposed implementation of a unique personal identifier system in Kenya and compared that to India’s Aadhar […]
Newly Proposed State Corporation Reforms: A Necessary Fix or another False Start?
The 2025 Cabinet-approved State Corporation Reforms Plan has detailed comprehensive changes in the structure and governance of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in Kenya. The plan, which involves mergers, dissolutions, restructuring, and declassification of various entities, is framed as a necessary intervention to enhance efficiency and alleviate fiscal pressures. However, beyond the technicalities, it raises significant legal […]
Tax 101: Tariffs are taxes
There is a big global debate on tariffs, their effects, and who pays for them, creating misconceptions. The broader trade strategy premised on Tariffs reflects a worldview rooted in 19th-century mercantilism, emphasizing protectionism and an aggressive use of tariffs.[1] The misconception that tariffs aren’t taxes stems from several factors. Framing plays a significant role. Tariffs […]
Law and Economics of Occupational Licensing: The Case of Law Profession
Occupational licensing is widespread in Kenya, particularly in professions such as law and medicine, and it sparks debate in law and economics. In Kenya, occupational licensing is provided for through a set of statutes. This has implications for markets of legal service provision, which we discuss in this blog. Why is occupational licensing now a […]
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
Why Policies Limiting Early Access to Retirement Savings are Misguided
Among the most concerning things in Kenya today is the relentless march of the state through laws and regulations and into areas that result in reduced autonomy of citizens. This march of the nanny state is predicated on the view that state agencies care for and know better than the citizen. In other words, citizens […]
Tracking Maisha Namba – Digital UPI: What is changing, and what are the key issues?
Maisha Namba refers to the unique personal identification number assigned to every Kenyan citizen upon registration, usually at birth. This number serves as a lifelong personal identity number. In this study by the IEA Kenya, the author examined the proposed implementation of a unique personal identifier system in Kenya and compared that to India’s Aadhar […]
Newly Proposed State Corporation Reforms: A Necessary Fix or another False Start?
The 2025 Cabinet-approved State Corporation Reforms Plan has detailed comprehensive changes in the structure and governance of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in Kenya. The plan, which involves mergers, dissolutions, restructuring, and declassification of various entities, is framed as a necessary intervention to enhance efficiency and alleviate fiscal pressures. However, beyond the technicalities, it raises significant legal […]
Tax 101: Tariffs are taxes
There is a big global debate on tariffs, their effects, and who pays for them, creating misconceptions. The broader trade strategy premised on Tariffs reflects a worldview rooted in 19th-century mercantilism, emphasizing protectionism and an aggressive use of tariffs.[1] The misconception that tariffs aren’t taxes stems from several factors. Framing plays a significant role. Tariffs […]
Law and Economics of Occupational Licensing: The Case of Law Profession
Occupational licensing is widespread in Kenya, particularly in professions such as law and medicine, and it sparks debate in law and economics. In Kenya, occupational licensing is provided for through a set of statutes. This has implications for markets of legal service provision, which we discuss in this blog. Why is occupational licensing now a […]