4. Implementation of the STAJ Blueprint

This chapter describes the operationalisation process of the blueprint, from internal institutional alignment and stakeholder engagement to the adoption of multi-door approaches to justice and innovative use of technology. It highlights the systems, partnerships and interventions that supported this transformation, while also examining the challenges encountered and lessons learned along the way. Together, these efforts represent a decisive commitment to making justice more accessible, responsive and reflective of Kenya’s commitment to a just society.

In this chapter

• 4.1 The change process
• 4.2 Key stakeholders in the implementation process
• 4.3 The multi-door approaches
• 4.4 Innovation and technology in the administration of justice
• 4.5 The judiciary’s enterprise resource planning system
• 4.6 Resources mobilisation and utilisation
• 4.7 Successes in the implementation of the strategy
• 4.8 Challenges faced in implementing STAJ
• 4.9 Lessons learned

4.1 The change process

The implementation of the STAJ blueprint stepped up the paradigmatic shift from traditional judicial administration to a holistic people-centred justice delivery system. It was guided by the understanding that justice systems should be responsive to societal needs and realities.

The change process was iterative and dynamic, focusing on institutional renewal and a cultural shift within the judiciary. It began with internal sensitisation sessions with judicial officers and staff, ensuring buy-in and alignment to the blueprint’s values. The participation of heads of directorates and registrars of all the courts was instrumental in ensuring internal dissemination and effective by-in by teams within the institutions.

The Annual Heads of Court Stations Forum, as well as the Magistrates’ Annual Colloquia, became useful forums for in-depth dissemination of the new system. Through these avenues, the integration of STAJ priorities into operational plans of individual court stations, departments and directorates, backed by capacity-building initiatives and revised performance indicators was achieved.

4.2 Key stakeholders in the implementation process

Successful implementation of STAJ required a multistakeholder, whole-of-society approach. Key stakeholders included the following.

• Judiciary leadership: The Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and Office of the Chief Registrar of the judiciary provided vision, oversight and strategic direction.
• Judicial personnel: Magistrates, judges, registrars, clerical staff and administrative officers implemented changes on the ground.
• Court Users Committees (CUCs): Local-level forums facilitated regular interaction between the judiciary and community stakeholders.
• Development partners: International donors and technical support organisations offered funding and capacity-building resources.
• Civil society organisations: CSOs advocated for the public interest and acted as intermediaries for community concerns.
• Community justice actors: Chiefs, elders, religious leaders and informal dispute resolution facilitators acted to help resolve disputes.
• Technology providers: This group of stakeholders supported digital transformation and ICT infrastructure.

Image

4.3 The multi-door approaches

The ‘multi-door approach’ to justice in the Kenyan judiciary under STAJ refers to the diverse pathways through which people can resolve disputes, access remedies and enforce rights beyond the traditional courtroom litigation model. This approach aims to provide flexible, inclusive, affordable and people-centred justice and is supported by a constitutional framework that recognises alternatives to traditional litigation. The multi-door approach under STAJ is guided by the principles summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Principles of the multi-door approach under STAJ

At the time of writing, the judiciary in Kenya had been dispensing justice through the following additional approaches apart from litigation.

Court-annexed mediation

Court-annexed mediation (CAM), which was piloted in 2015 and gradually rolled out to the court stations across the country, is now officially integrated as an alternative approach to dispute resolution. Mediation registries have been established across the country.

Alternative justice systems

The Constitution of Kenya (2010) mandates the promotion of alternative justice systems (AJS) to complement formal judicial mechanisms. Article 159(2)(c) recognises AJS as essential to achieving accessible, efficient and culturally relevant justice. Under STAJ, AJS has been significantly institutionalised and expanded to enhance people-centred justice delivery.

The AJS in the Kenyan judiciary is an initiative that recognises and supports community-based dispute resolution methods, mostly in rural, pastoralist and informal settlements, where formal courts are inaccessible or viewed as intimidating or unfriendly by local communities. AJS is broadly grounded on customary, traditional Indigenous and religious practices, recognising elders and local mediators as justice providers. The implementation of AJS has to align with the constitutional imperative of compliance with the law, must not be repugnant to justice and morality, and its outcomes must be non-discriminatory based on gender or any other prohibited grounds.

AJS has been institutionalised through the development of the AJS Policy and Framework launched in 2020, which gave the initiative formal recognition and support for its promotion and alignment with constitutional values such as equality, fairness and human rights. AJS offers accessible justice for marginalised and rural communities, especially where formal courts are distant or unaffordable. The AJS Policy provided a basis for the establishment of AJS suites (Ukumbi) at various court centres.

‘The judiciary, through County Court Users Committees that included stakeholders from outside the judiciary, developed guidelines for interaction between the judiciary and various AJS models.’

a. The nature of AJS

AJS includes a range of traditional, religious, customary and informal systems, such as:

1. elders’ councils
2. clan systems
3. faith-based mediation
4. community forums
5. cultural tribunals (for example, Somali Xeer, Maasai elder systems, Luo Kith councils).

b. The dispute resolution process under AJS

The AJS processes varies from community to community. However, the general pattern includes:

1. Report: Dispute reported by a party to a local elder, clan leader or religious authority.
2. Consensus: The parties agree to resolve the matter through the local or customary mechanism.
3. Hearing: Elders or community mediators facilitate dialogue between parties, often in public or communal settings.
4. Resolution: A resolution is reached, usually based on restorative justice, reconciliation and social harmony.
5. Documentation or endorsement: In some areas, resolutions may be documented and endorsed by local administrators or chiefs. In others, CUCs or courts may acknowledge outcomes.

c. Integration with the formal justice system

Integration with Kenya’s formal justice system involves:

1. Referral and linkage: Formal courts may refer suitable cases such as land, succession or family disputes, or minor criminal disputes to AJS forums.
2. Recognition by courts: Courts may recognise and enforce AJS outcomes, provided they meet constitutional and legal standards.
3. Training and support: The judiciary and partners have trained elders, chiefs, paralegals and other actors to standardise and humanise AJS processes.

d. Types of disputes handled by AJS

The types of disputes handled by AJS include:

1. land and boundary disputes
2. family and succession matters
3. minor criminal offenses (for example, theft, assault)
4. community or inter-clan conflicts
5. debt and business disagreements.

Serious criminal offenses, human rights violations, or constitutional issues are not eligible for AJS.

e. Key benefits of AJS in Kenya

Benefits of AJS include:

1. Cost-effectiveness: No fee is payable or is very nominal if payable at all.
2. Efficiency: AJS involves quick dispute resolution.
3. Culturally appropriate: AJS reflects values and norms of local communities; is it therefore readily acceptable by communities.
4. Accessible: People who are illiterate and/or poor or remote populations can easily reach and afford AJS forums.
5. Restorative: The focus of AJS is on repairing relationships for social harmony as opposed to punishment.

f. Challenges and safeguards

There are challenges associated with AJS that must be continually kept in focus by the judiciary to avoid injustices that could arise from AJS processes. These include:

1. the risk of gender bias or discrimination if not well regulated
2. the need for legal literacy and human rights training for AJS actors
3. documentation and monitoring remain weak in many communities
4. formal recognition and enforcement mechanisms are still evolving.

g. Mahakama Popote programme

‘Mahakama Popote’ is a Kiswahili terms that literally means ‘courts anywhere’. The name ‘Mahakama Popote’ is coined from the manner in which the judiciary leverages technology to optimise the availability of judicial officers to hear and determine cases that are not necessarily filed at their court stations.

Through the Mahakam Popote programme, technology allows for the remote hearing of cases by judicial officers with low caseloads – regardless of where the cases have been filed. This enables optimal use of available resources to enhance service delivery across the country, reducing backlog. Mahakam Popote guidelines have also been developed to help promote access to justice by enabling timely resolution of cases. The programme represents a major step towards the realisation of the objectives of the Social Transformation through Access to Justice strategy.

Small Claims Courts

Kenya’s Small Claims Courts, established in 2021, aim to provide quick, inexpensive and informal resolution of disputes with a value of 1 million Kenya shillings (KSh) or below (approximately US$8,000 at the time of writing). These courts operate with simplified procedures and a strict 60-day resolution timeline. They are designed to serve ordinary citizens and small businesses, enhancing economic justice.

There are several challenges of the Small Claims Courts.

• The courts have gained popularity to the extent that they are now overwhelmed, making the 60-day completion timeline difficult to achieve.
• The overwhelming number of appeals to the High Court, which had not been envisaged. At the time of writing, a committee headed by a judge of the High Court was working on a framework which, if approved, will address the challenge of the numerous appeals to the High Court.
• The courts are required to be presided over by adjudicators. However, the adjudicator’s framework is not yet in place and currently they are being run by magistrates who have legal training and are predisposed to legal formality. The idea of adjudicators is also resisted by advocates, who do not want to appear before ‘non-professionals’. The adjudicators model therefore needs further thought and development to create an environment that will fully serve the purpose for which the Small Claims Courts were intended.

Specialised Gender Justice and Children Courts

The Kenyan judiciary has in place a Gender Mainstreaming and Diversity Policy²⁶ that seeks to entrench equity and non-discrimination in the institution. The STAJ blueprint specifically recognises that systemic inequalities affect the ability of women, persons with disabilities (PWDs), children, the elderly and marginalised groups to access justice. Pursuant to that recognition, STAJ takes an intersectional approach to respond to gender, disability and other vulnerabilities through various innovative strategies. These innovations have allowed vulnerable categories of people to resolve their disputes in a manner that takes into consideration their multiple identities.

To address challenges faced by women who face violations based on gender, STAJ introduced special courts to deal with cases of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The creation of the Gender Justice Courts has ensured these cases are prioritised and finalised within the shortest time possible. This includes ensuring women, and occasionally men, are able to access justice in SGBV cases in a manner that does not re-victimise them. These specialised courts are facilitated to provide sensitive and speedy handling of cases involving gender-based violence (GBV) and sexual offences.

Children Courts in Kenya are specialised Magistrates’ Courts established under the Kenyan Children Act (Part III) and designated by the Chief Justice across the country. These courts have both civil and criminal jurisdiction. They handle cases of guardianship, parental responsibility, custody, maintenance, adoption and protection orders. They also hear criminal cases against children and cases involving offences against children where they may be victims or complainants. However, they, do not deal with murder trials against children.

All Magistrates’ Courts technically have jurisdiction over children’s matters, but specialised Children’s Courts exclusively (for example, Tononoka Law Courts in Mombasa and Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi) handle children’s cases in some stations.²⁷ The Chief Justice has the power to designate such courts in other counties.

Children’s Courts are designed to be less intimidating. The use smaller hearing rooms, in-camera proceedings, masked identities (for example, use of initials rather than full names) and non-uniformed police officers. The aim is to make interactions more child-sensitive and reduce trauma during proceedings.

For speedy delivery of justice, the judiciary has introduced frameworks such as dedicated children’s court days to fast track cases and reduce backlog. Emphasis is placed on diversion, where appropriate – redirecting children away from formal legal processes toward rehabilitation, counselling, restitution or community care.

Some of the challenges associated with the Children’s Courts include missing witnesses causing long delays and lack of facilities to ensure a child-friendly environment in court.

Impact of the multi-door approach to justice

The impact of the multi-door approach to justice is evidenced by:

• Reduced case backlog in formal courts. The annual State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice Reports (SOJAR) detail the numbers in each court and these indicate success in this respect.²⁸
• Increased user satisfaction and trust in the justice system as per the customer satisfaction surveys conducted by the judiciary. The Kenyan judiciary has been deliberate about improving court services through stakeholder feedback. The judiciary conducted court user satisfaction surveys in 2019 and 2021 and a national dialogue 2025. Valuable feedback obtained from stakeholders has been taken into account in improving service delivery. The overall satisfaction index was 67 and 69 per cent respectively in the two surveys.²⁹
• Enhanced access to justice for marginalised communities (for example, women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples).
• A stronger justice ecosystem that integrates both formal and informal mechanisms.

4.4 Innovation and technology in the administration of justice

Technology has been harnessed and used to improve access to justice through the following platforms:

a. The electronic filing system

The electronic filing (e-filing) system is a public-facing portal used by lawyers and litigants to file pleadings and track cases. The system was given the initial thrust by COVID. It commenced in Nairobi in July 2020, alongside virtual courts and the case tracking system (CTS), and expanded to multiple counties over time. All court stations had adopted e-filing by 11 March 2024, with physical document printing phased out by 1 July 2024.

Users are required to register online for a user ID and password via the judiciary’s website. Law firms or organisations are at liberty to create multiple user accounts under a single firm profile. Access to the system requires a virtual private network (VPN) connection, along with password and two-factor authentication.

b. Filing of cases

All documents filed must be in PDF format, with a maximum size of 50 MB, and must be clearly named (for example, ‘Affidavit’, ‘Annexures’, ‘Plaint’) to avoid mix-ups. Parties are required to provide valid email and phone contacts to an electronic service, including details of the opposing party. Partial filings can be saved and revisited later. The filing must be completed within 30 days, after which the process must be restarted. The e-filed date is taken as the date when full payment is confirmed, and any supporting documents can only considered and filed after payment of the requisite fees.

c. Fees assessment

The system automatically assesses court fees based on case type. Payments can be made electronically through a bank or mobile phone platforms. Once payment is confirmed, the person paying receives an electronic receipt via email and short message service (SMS) notification.

d. Filing confirmation and e-service

After successful submission and payment, the party receives an SMS and email confirming receipt, including the case number and list of filed documents. A party may also request e-service and after approval by the registry, the system sends pleadings directly to the email addresses of the other parties.

e. Case tracking and additional documents

The case tracking system (CTS) automatically links new documents to existing cases and supports all registry activities such as registration, cause list generation, tracking, court orders and performance reporting. Once a case is in the system, parties can upload additional documents after requesting a link to the existing case. The court carries out a verification before providing the link.

The case tracking system helps in tracking progress and measuring performance of individual courts.

f. Cause lists and the judiciary dashboard

Through the cause list portal, litigants and advocates are able to view live daily schedules of listed cases which are integrated with the CTS. The judiciary also uses a data tracking dashboard for real-time oversight, helping management monitor case flow, adjournments and reasons for adjournment, backlog volumes and general court performance.

a. Digitisation of court records systematically across all courts has enabled greater efficiency in registry operations.

b. Robust, integrated enterprise resource planning (ERP) for administrative efficiency in support of enhanced delivery of justice has been put in place. This initiative is discussed in detail in sub-section 4.5 below.

c. The judiciary complaints management system (JCMS) is an important accountability tool that helps in the efficient handling of complaints from the public.

d. The presence of a court recording and transcription system in some courts and tribunals has been a ‘game changer’ in terms of making court proceedings and decisions available in record time. Previously, obtaining proceedings expeditiously was a challenge.

e. Operationalisation of an automated judiciary advocates management system (JAMS) has eased the processing of annual practising certificates for advocates who obtain their annual practising licences from the Office of the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary.

The e-Judiciary mobile application

The recently introduced e-Judiciary mobile application is an integrated application of the case tracking system and e-filing designed to run on a mobile device, for the availability of various court services on a mobile platform. It is available on App Store or Google Play and has the following seven features.

1. Access to case information: This allows for self-searching of case information from a mobile phone, eliminating the need to visit the court registry to check the status of a matter. This feature allows a person to quickly access activity dates, case summaries, as well as case outcomes.
2. Verification of court orders, judgment and rulings: This allows for verification of case outcomes for authenticity, completeness and accuracy. It also builds stakeholders’ confidence, reinforces the integrity of the justice sector and assists in eliminating forgeries.
3. Access to probate and administration records: This allows for self-searching of succession matters filed in all the courts. People are able to check whether a succession matter has been filed in another court just by populating the name or the estate of the deceased.
4. Access to cause lists and court virtual links: This allows for easy access to the virtual court and also helps in checking the scheduling of cases and other court activities.
5. Checking payment status: This is useful in enhancing accountability. The feature is used to confirm payment details and get receipts for filed cases. Confirming payments is important for generating and downloading receipts when preparing release orders/payment verification by prison officers or verifying the authenticity of receipts to confirm completeness of the filing process.
6. Filing cases: This allows for filing of cases in the Small Claims Courts. All advocates, litigants or the general public can initiate and complete the filing of their cases without the necessity of appearing at the registries.

Providing internet connectivity to all court stations and equipping judiciary personnel with ICT working tools and equipment enables safeguarding of all the gains enumerated above.

Challenges of transitioning from a manual system to an automated system

The Kenyan judiciary prides itself in having developed digital justice through the use of internal capacity. None of the systems enumerated above were procured from external providers, who often charge heavy licencing fees for the use of products or systems they have developed. All systems have been developed by the ICT Directorate, which utilised the institution’s internal capacity.

However, the transition from a fully manual to an almost fully automated system has not been without challenges. The challenges – together with the corresponding interventions – are listed in Table 4.2.

There are also interventions yet to be put in place.

• The implementation of the file transfer process from one court to another is long overdue.
• The system-based file movement register is also long overdue.
• The system needs to be configured to provide privacy in cases involving children, protected witnesses, family and other matters requiring privacy.
• The digitisation of old case registers is still outstanding; these registers are still fully manual.

Key lessons learned on automating justice

• There must be a change management strategy developed from the onset.
• There is the need to maintain a robust engagement with key stakeholders, such as the bar associations, for the strategies to succeed.
• Governments looking to automate justice should do ‘the first-things-first’, get statistical baselines right as the data entry begins, and should close all old, concluded files then digitise the existing records before rolling out e-filing.
• The training of judges, magistrates and staff before launch is important for ownership and buy-in.

Table 4.2. Challenges and interventions for transitioning to an automated system

4.5 The judiciary’s enterprise resource planning system

The Kenyan judiciary’s enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, Jumuika (Kiswahili for ‘integrate incorporate’) covers various functionalities, including work plan preparation, financial document recall and reversals, supply chain management (SCM) processes, expenditure requisition (purchase order generation, approval and posting), and updating bank details for daily subsistence allowances (DSAs). The system integrates with the e-filing system and facilitates deposit refunds to litigants.

Work planning: Here, the system helps the judiciary management team and heads of court stations in the preparation and revision of resource requirements to align with uploaded budget ceilings for a particular financial year.

To assist in work planning, the system allows for the following.

1. Preliminary budget ceilings for each court station or directorate are loaded into the ERP system and the draft work plan is made accessible.
2. Budget allocations for ring-fenced items such as electricity, the internet, cleaning services, contracted guards, rent, and fuel are confirmed during a work planning workshop.
3. The leadership and management team engages staff on prioritisation of activities to align within provided ceilings.
4. The revised resource requirements are loaded onto the system in accordance with the new ceilings.
5. Work plans are reviewed and finalised.

Financial documents’ recall and reversals

The system allows for recalling and reversing financial documents related to expenditure requisitions (EXRs), purchase orders (POs) and payment vouchers (PVs). This is with a view to enhancing budget management to ensure accountability and accuracy in financial records. Only one authorised user can recall historical EXRs to preserve the integrity of past records. Access is controlled via user setup functionality. Current recalls are also restricted and limited to specific authorised users (defined in user setup) to ensure traceability and accuracy. The Accounts Directorate Module Lead reviews and assigns recall and reversal permissions while the ICT Team grants access based on these permissions.

Once the budget is approved, the system commits the budget amount, whereupon it becomes unavailable for any other use unless a successful reversal is undertaken by the Accounts Directorate. The system also manages procurement of goods and services, ensuring greater accountability by minimising human intervention in the supply chain processes of the institution.

User guidelines on withholding taxes

User guidelines have been developed to assist suppliers to assess electronic slips for withholding income tax digitally in compliance with regulations issued by the National Treasury and the Kenya Revenue Authority.

For e-filing, court users are facilitated to upload their bank details so that they can receive their deposit refunds in the e-filing system. For staff on duty travel, they too can upload their bank details on the Jumuika Employee Self-Service Portal. This helps ensure accurate and updated bank details for timely DSA payments.

4.6 Resources mobilisation and utilisation

a. Funding the annual operational plans

The core funding for the annual operational plans of STAJ is mainly from government allocations and external donor support. The law in Kenya does not permit the use of internally generated revenues to run the institution. All revenue collected by the institution is remitted to the Consolidated Fund. However, the annual judiciary’s budget allocation only covers about 50 per cent of its resource requirements, creating a significant funding shortfall.

b. The Judiciary Fund

The Judiciary Fund is established by Kenya’s 2010 Constitution, with the aim of giving the judiciary greater autonomy over its finances. This fund became operational in 2022, aiming to provide extra support and more efficiency in funding planned activities. However, its implementation has presented challenges the effect of which is to claw back on gains envisaged by the Constitution. The challenges relate to the introduction of controls by the National Treasury, which have made efficient access to funds difficult. Constant engagement with the executive and legislature has continued for the purposes of streamlining the operational framework of the fund.

c. External donor and partner support

To sustain STAJ, development partners and bilateral and multilateral institutions have often extended a hand in funding some STAJ initiatives. The judiciary has sustained partnerships with various donors who provide funding based on the extent of the interventions’ alignment to their own priorities.

4.7 Successes in the implementation of the strategy

4.8 Challenges faced in implementing STAJ

a. Digital divide and technological limitations

Uneven access to digital tools among court users and judicial staff limits the effectiveness of digitisation efforts. This is more so among rural populations where internet connectivity is limited or lack of appropriate gadgets.

b. Legal and policy constraints

The incongruence between formal legal frameworks and community-based or informal justice systems slows the integration and recognition of alternative justice systems (AJS) within the formal justice sector.

c. Co-ordination across justice sector actors

Fragmentation and lack of synergy among justice institutions, including the police, prosecution, legal aid providers and correctional services weakens the coherence of access to justice initiatives and referral mechanisms.

d. Inclusivity barriers

Persistent marginalisation of vulnerable groups (women, persons with disabilities, people living in poverty) in justice processes undermines the core objective of people-centred and equitable access to justice.

e. Persistent funding shortfall

The judiciary has consistently received only about half of its resource requirements, leading to understaffed courts that cannot operate optimally and under-supported programmes. This affects service delivery and the implementation of the blueprint.

4.9 Lessons learned

The implementation of Kenya’s Social Transformation through Access to Justice (STAJ) blueprint offers valuable lessons that can inform the development of people-centred access to justice strategies to propel reforms across the Commonwealth. These lessons emerge from both the achievements and the challenges experienced during rollout. Some examples include the following.

1. A successful strategy must leverage and build on successes that have already been realised by past strategies to maintain the momentum of the transformation and to keep on the right trajectory.
2. Leadership anchored in vision and values is critical. A vision bearer who demonstrates passion and commitment to the strategy motivates the rest of the institution to follow.
3. Judiciaries tend to be misunderstood by the other arms of government. In complex legal and socio-political environments, the importance of risk-mitigation strategies and resilience building is critical.
4. Strong, data-driven cases for funding must be made, while engaging formally and informally with national budget planners and other stakeholders.
5. A resource mobilisation strategy must be in place and the creation of a resource mobilisation office is critical in ensuring a structured and well-co-ordinated approach to fundraising from development partners. Capacity building for resource mobilisation is important to ensure proposals submitted to support the strategy are in line with the priorities of the partners, without compromising on the priorities of the judiciary.

Footnotes

_{26 Kenya Judiciary (no date), ‘Gender Mainstreaming Policy for the Judiciary’. https://judiciary.go.ke/download/gender-mainstreaming-policy/.  |  [back]}

_{27 Children Act, 2022, Part III.  |  [back]}

_{28 Kenya Judiciary (2023), State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice Report, Annual Report 2022/2023. https://judiciary.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/SOJAR-2022-2023-1.pdf.  |  [back]}

_{29 Kenya Judiciary (2021), Court User Satisfaction Survey Report 2021. https://judiciary.go.ke/download-category/survey-reports/; Kenya Judiciary (2022), E-filing and Commercial Justice Sector Reform Survey Report 2022. https://judiciary.go.ke/download-category/survey-reports/.  |  [back]}