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
The Grounds to Repeal the Price Control Act of 2011
The Price Control Act of 2011, with its imposition of price ceilings on essential goods, represents a significant intervention in the natural forces of supply and demand that govern a free market. The Act empowers the Minister to control the prices of essential goods, preventing them from becoming unaffordable. The Act outlines a specific mechanism […]
Why is Kenya’s Fiscal Consolidation Agenda Facing Failure?
The earliest proposition of fiscal consolidation can be traced back to the Keynesian theory which argues that fiscal austerity measures reduce growth and increases unemployment through aggregate demand effects. According to this theory, government undertaking contractionary fiscal policies of either reducing government spending or increasing tax rates, will eventually suffer a reduction in aggregate demand […]
Is Monetary Policy Too Tight?
We recommended (“And then, Floods”) that the Central Bank of Kenya policy rate should be lowered by 300 basis points, from 13 to 10 percent, from August 6. Instead, a reduction of just 25 basis points, from 13 to 12¾, was made on that date. Someone is wrong. Who? In explaining the 25bp decision, it […]
Tax 101: Misconceptions on the Withdrawal of the Finance Bill and Its Implications on Kenya’s Appropriations.
There has been a misconception that when the Finance Bill 2024 was formally withdrawn, all government operations would stop because revenues would not be raised. To understand this misconception, we need to understand what a finance bill is, what revenue-raising measures are, and how that is related to the tax code. A Finance bill is […]
The Constitutional Argument on Why Fiscally Decentralized Resources Cannot Be Shared Based on Population Alone?
1. Introduction Fiscal decentralisation is a core part of Kenya’s Constitutional order. Fiscal decentralisation is allocating revenue and expenditure responsibilities to lower levels of government. Kenya’s identity as a sovereign republic, as stated in Article 4 of its Constitution, is deeply intertwined with the national value of devolution, emphasised in Article 10. This unique relationship […]
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
The Grounds to Repeal the Price Control Act of 2011
The Price Control Act of 2011, with its imposition of price ceilings on essential goods, represents a significant intervention in the natural forces of supply and demand that govern a free market. The Act empowers the Minister to control the prices of essential goods, preventing them from becoming unaffordable. The Act outlines a specific mechanism […]
Why is Kenya’s Fiscal Consolidation Agenda Facing Failure?
The earliest proposition of fiscal consolidation can be traced back to the Keynesian theory which argues that fiscal austerity measures reduce growth and increases unemployment through aggregate demand effects. According to this theory, government undertaking contractionary fiscal policies of either reducing government spending or increasing tax rates, will eventually suffer a reduction in aggregate demand […]
Is Monetary Policy Too Tight?
We recommended (“And then, Floods”) that the Central Bank of Kenya policy rate should be lowered by 300 basis points, from 13 to 10 percent, from August 6. Instead, a reduction of just 25 basis points, from 13 to 12¾, was made on that date. Someone is wrong. Who? In explaining the 25bp decision, it […]
Tax 101: Misconceptions on the Withdrawal of the Finance Bill and Its Implications on Kenya’s Appropriations.
There has been a misconception that when the Finance Bill 2024 was formally withdrawn, all government operations would stop because revenues would not be raised. To understand this misconception, we need to understand what a finance bill is, what revenue-raising measures are, and how that is related to the tax code. A Finance bill is […]
The Constitutional Argument on Why Fiscally Decentralized Resources Cannot Be Shared Based on Population Alone?
1. Introduction Fiscal decentralisation is a core part of Kenya’s Constitutional order. Fiscal decentralisation is allocating revenue and expenditure responsibilities to lower levels of government. Kenya’s identity as a sovereign republic, as stated in Article 4 of its Constitution, is deeply intertwined with the national value of devolution, emphasised in Article 10. This unique relationship […]