2. The Kenyan Experience

2.1 Historical context

In pre-colonial Kenya, different communities applied their respective customs and traditions to resolve disputes without necessarily distinguishing between civil and criminal disputes.

In pre-colonial Kenya, different communities applied their respective customs and traditions to resolve disputes without necessarily distinguishing between civil and criminal disputes. All wrongs were harmonised as transgressions against the community. The common features of these pre-colonial justice systems were their informality, flexibility, unwritten and un-codified procedures, reliance on community participation, and restorative outcomes.12 The advent of colonialism introduced the English common law justice system, resulting in a bifurcated system for the colonised and the colonisers. The justice system was segregated, marginalising the Indigenous people to native tribunals while the settler community was served by formal courts presided over by expatriate magistrates and judges. The segregated system served to deny basic rights to Indigenous people while legitimising the colonial state. Even so, the judiciary itself was marginalised, as it was positioned as a department in the public service. So invisible was it that it was not even mentioned in the Flemming Commission report of 1962 mandated to investigate government’s recurrent expenditure.13

At independence, the dual system was abolished and merged into a modern court, which was a colonial heritage in most aspects. Marginalisation of the ordinary citizens remained largely unaddressed, as the judiciary was still dominated by foreigners who continued to serve the interests of the government of the day – due to the independence constitutional architecture allowing for control of the judiciary by the executive. The general populace viewed the judiciary with a lot of scepticism. Public confidence in the judiciary remained generally low for an institution charged with the responsibility of ensuring respect for the rule of law. The situation remained largely the same until the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya in 2010. Indeed, the country’s worst inter-ethnic post-election violence of 2007/2008, where more than 1,000 people were killed and thousands displaced, was partially attributed to the low levels of confidence the Kenyan public had in the judiciary.14 From a past defined by colonial legal exclusion to post-independence marginalisation, the Kenyan judiciary has evolved through deliberate and sweeping reforms following the adoption of a new constitution in 2010.

This is not to say that there were no pre-2010 initiatives to reform the judiciary. Prior to this, the judiciary had constantly been conscious of the need to reform, with a view to creating an institution that was more accessible and responsive to the justice needs of Kenyans. This was viewed as being essential to the transformation of the Kenyan society towards a free, equal, prosperous and just social order. In 2003, a committee known as the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Committee, led by retired Justice Aaron Ringera, was appointed to address judicial accountability. It produced a report that resulted in forced mass resignations and retirements of judges and magistrates implicated in corrupt practices.15 There were concerns about the implementation of the report. However, it was the first public formal acknowledgement that there was need for transformation in the judiciary. Efforts were made through the appointment of various committees (13 in total), whose mandates included making recommendations on how delivery of justice could be enhanced in the various aspects of judicial service. The most prominent of the pre-2010 committees was the Task Force on Judicial Reforms (2010)16 led by then-High Court Judge William Ouko (now a Judge of the Supreme Court of Kenya). Each of these committees submitted reports identifying a myriad of challenges and making recommendations for reform. Most of the recommendations were incorporated into the judiciary transformation frameworks that followed – which are discussed later in this guide.

The pre-2010 interventions that laid the groundwork for later reforms were mainly geared towards addressing:

  • judicial corruption and case backlog
  • lack of judicial independence
  • limited infrastructure and human resource capacity
  • inadequate co-ordination across justice institutions
  • low levels of public trust in formal justice systems.

The pre-2010 interventions may be summarised as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Pre-2010 interventions to reform the judiciary

1. Legal aid and pro bono service
  • Limited state support through a pauper system run by the judiciary.
  • Limited pro bono services.
  • Civil society provided most legal aid.

2. Alternative dispute resolution
  • Pilot ADR (mediation) in a few courts.
  • Reconcilitations promoted in cases of misdimeanors, as provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • Traditional and customary systems applied in rural areas, without formal recognition of the systems.

3. Gender and children justice
  • Children’s courts existed but were not widely operational due to lack of appropriate infrastructure and facilities.
  • Gender-based units were created in police stations, mainly through donor support for survivor support.

4. Public awareness and civic education
  • Legal rights awareness campaigns, often led by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the media.
  • Introduction of paralegal training programmes, especially in slum and rural communities.

5. Mobile courts

Temporary courts mainly supported by development partners – for example, in inaccessible refugee camps.

6. Legal and judicial reform

The Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector (GJLOS) Reform Programme was a major donor-supported multistakeholder reform programme aimed at enhancing co-ordination, protection of human rights and access to justice, public responsiveness, and addressing corruption, among others.

During this period, there was heightened civil society advocacy around the need for a state-funded legal aid programme and shelter services, among other broad legal and judicial reforms.

 

2.2 The post-2010 journey

A major turning point in the judiciary reform processes occurred when Kenya promulgated its current Constitution. The Constitution of Kenya 2010 came at a time when the Kenyan judiciary had suffered decades of neglect, gross underfunding and low public confidence. The state of the judiciary then was captured by the first post-2010 Chief Justice, Dr Willy Mutunga, in a now famous quote.

‘We found an institution so frail in its structures; so thin on resources; so low on its confidence; so deficient in integrity; so weak in its public support that to have expected it to deliver justice was to be wildly optimistic. We found a Judiciary that was designed to fail.’

Dr Willy Mutunga, Chief Justice 31 May 201217

The new Constitution heralded a call for urgent institutional renewal that would restore public confidence and trust in it. Kenya’s post-2010 judicial transformation journey, culminating in the Social Transformation through Access to Justice (STAJ), has been a profound evolution marked by introspection, bold reform and innovative blueprints.

 

2.3 The Judiciary Transformation Framework (JTF) (2012–2016)

The Judiciary Transformation Framework (JTF)18 was a landmark initiative aimed at reforming the Kenyan judiciary to enhance access to justice, accountability, transparency and efficiency. It laid a foundation for what was largely inward-looking institutional transformation. The deliberate use of the term ‘transformation’ conveyed a sense of urgency by the judiciary, that it must heed the call of Kenyans to radically change its practices, norms and structures in order to serve the interests of the new democratic order. It was a shift from a history where:

  • power and authority were highly centralised, with the Office of the Chief Justice operating as a judicial monarch supported by the Registrar of the High Court
  • accountability mechanisms were weak and reporting requirements absent.

The quote above by the Chief Justice clearly and succinctly captured the need for the transformation. The JTF was developed through a highly consultative process that involved judges, magistrates, judicial staff and other stakeholders in the justice sector. It also benefited greatly from previous reports prepared over the years on judicial reform, as well as in-depth discussions in various forums seeking to address what ailed the judiciary at the time.

Dr Willy Mutunga, who became the Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya in 2011, was the first chief justice to be appointed after the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 through a public, open and people-focused interview process.

In an interview with Dr Willy Mutunga,19 the former Chief Justice emphasised that his judicial transformation agenda, expressed through the Judiciary Transformation Framework (JTF) 2012–2016 blueprint, was deeply rooted in the national values and principles of governance. These are espoused in Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and include among others, justice, equality, human rights and public participation. The blueprint was also anchored on the desire to restore public confidence, judicial independence, integrity and efficiency in Kenya’s judiciary.

The retired Chief Justice was concerned that the vast majority of Kenyans did not go to courts for redress, yet it was the courts that were considered to be ‘formal’, while the more available and accessible justice systems, such as ‘Maslaha’ (the Somali community justice system, which is largely restorative in nature) or ‘Kithitu’ (the Kamba community justice system that involves ‘oathing’ as a way of determining truth in a matter), were relegated or ignored altogether as ‘informal’. There was something fundamentally wrong with that position.

These examples are representative of most African justice systems that involve entire families and tend to focus on restoration apart from retribution or punishment. Where Kithitu was to be administered, the whole family took interest in the matter and prevailed upon the parties to stick to the truth to avoid curses that might arise should they take the oath while guilty. These systems worked and kept communities in harmony.

The new Constitution had provisions that supported a framework to anchor a people-centred governance structure. It required a reorientation of the state and all its institutions to be pro-people. Some of the relevant provisions of the Constitution are expanded on below.20

a. The national values and principles of governance (Article 10)

The national values and principles of governance bind all state organs, state officers, public officers and all persons whenever any of them:

  • applies or interprets the Constitution
  • enacts, applies or interprets any law
  • makes or implements public policy decisions.

These values and principles of governance include democracy and participation of the people, human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination, and protection of the marginalised. They also include good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability. These constitutional provisions on equity, inclusivity and equality effectively formalise what had been considered ‘informal’.

b. Access to justice (Article 48)

As stated earlier, the Constitution of Kenya provides that the state shall ensure access to justice for all persons and, if any fee is required, it shall be reasonable and shall not impede access to justice. This is an important provision that further anchors the inclusion of the poor, marginalised and vulnerable in society.

c. Judicial authority (Article 159)

The Constitution recognises that judicial authority vested in, and exercised by, the courts and tribunals, is derived from the people. It further requires that in exercising judicial authority, the courts and tribunals shall be guided by the following principles.

  • Justice shall be done to all, irrespective of status.
  • Justice shall not be delayed.
  • Alternative forms of dispute resolution, including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, shall be promoted, to the extent that they do not contravene the Bill of Rights and also that they are not repugnant to justice or morality, or result in outcomes that are repugnant to justice and morality. They must also be consistent with the Constitution or any written law.
  • The Constitution further requires that justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities; and that the purpose and principles of the Constitution shall be protected and promoted.

Chief Justice Mutunga expressed the view that these provisions in the Constitution were highly progressive in as far as the realisation of the right to access to justice, but in an abstract sense. This therefore necessitated the development of a framework that ‘breathed life’ into these provisions. To realise this, he put together a multidisciplinary think tank that came up with the Judiciary Transformation Framework. He also put in place a judiciary leadership team known as the Judiciary Leadership Advisory Council (JLAC), taking cognisance of the importance of collective leadership to steer and provide oversight to the implementation of the JTF.

The development of the JTF focused achieving three main objectives.

  1. To reset the relationship between the judiciary and other arms of government on the principle of robust independence and constructive interdependence, and reposition itself as a strong, effective and equal independent arm of government, in its engagements with other agencies in the administration of justice.
  2. To reorient its organisational culture and align its social realities, institutional design and leadership style to reflect modern management concepts.
  3. To enhance service delivery to the people. This entailed expressing itself with greater authority and integrity through its judicial pronouncements, hence winning back public confidence.

The four main pillars of the JTF were as follows.

  1. People-focused access to justice.
  2. Transformative leadership, organisational culture and professional staff.
  3. Adequate financial resources and physical infrastructure.
  4. Harnessing technology as an enabler of justice.

These four pillars were intended to be driven and implemented through 10 Key Result Areas (KRAs), with clear targets and activities defined in the Strategic Plan (2012–2016) that was subsequently developed. The Judiciary Transformation Framework laid the roadmap for an ambitious transformation agenda and was largely successful in meeting its objectives and guided by its underlying philosophy of laying the foundations of judiciary transformation, from which the 2012–2019 Strategic Plan was developed.

Key successes of the JTF are discussed below.

1. Improved access to justice

i. Judicial infrastructure

Under the JTF, significant improvement in court infrastructure was realised, including construction and renovation of court buildings, to create a more dignified environment. Counties that had no court houses were prioritised, which significantly reduced the physical distances to courts. The construction of courts was done through a participatory process by engaging stakeholders before the design stage. As a result, the new courts that were constructed or rehabilitated included features such as ramps or lifts to cater for older people and persons with disabilities, lactation rooms for breastfeeding mothers, spaces that could be used as mediation rooms, and gender-responsive restrooms for girls, boys, women and men.

ii. Mobile courts

The launching of mobile courts to serve distant/inaccessible areas also brought justice closer to the people. To actualise this, the judiciary, which at that point had managed to convince Parliament and the executive to increase its budget, was able to incorporate the entire cost of running the mobile courts, which also increased in number. The expenses of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), the police (court orderlies), witness expenses and other incidental expenses for running the mobile courts were covered by the judiciary as other agencies had no budgetary allocation for this initiative.

iii. Court User Committees (CUCs)

Court User Committees are multistakeholder forums established in all courts in Kenya. They are ordinarily chaired by the magistrate heading the station or judge and include representatives from:

  • the judiciary (judicial officers and court staff)
  • National Police Service
  • Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)
  • prisons service
  • probation and aftercare services
  • county administration and local authorities
  • Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)
  • civil society organisations
  • advocates
  • community and faith-based organisations and other interest groups.

The functioning of Court Users Committees

  • Court Users Committees hold regular meetings (usually quarterly) to identify bottlenecks and propose solutions that will enable the seamless operation of the courts with all players on board.
  • They develop and monitor their Court Users Charters and service delivery commitments in each court.
  • They address emerging issues like case backlogs, delays or corruption.
  • They co-ordinate legal awareness forums, open days, mobile courts and alternative justice systems (AJS), where applicable.
  • They facilitate feedback mechanisms (complaints desks, surveys and public barazas – that is, forums usually convened by local chiefs to sensitise communities on emerging issues).
  • They also integrate gender, disability and human rights considerations in court processes.

The institutionalisation of CUCs helped to improve access to justice by:

  • identifying and resolving challenges affecting court users
  • enhancing co-ordination among justice sector institutions (the police, prosecution, prisons, legal aid providers) by bringing together all key actors in the justice chain and improving the delivery of justice through collaboration
  • promoting accountability and transparency in service delivery and people-centred approaches by incorporating public feedback and community participation
  • serving remote and marginalised areas to improve the relationship between the courts and its stakeholders.

iv. Use of Kiswahili language

The enhanced use of Kiswahili and other local languages in proceedings to accommodate non-English speakers also entrenched the people centeredness of the courts.

v. Institutional independence and integrity strengthened

The judiciary gained greater independence, evidenced by increasingly bold pronouncements of the courts, which were previously viewed as timid when dealing with cases against the government. The creation of the Judicial Review and Constitutional Divisions of the High Court served to bring to focus matters of constitutional interpretation to ‘breathe life into’ the new constitutional provisions.

The accountability standards that emerged were aimed at both external and internal constituencies. Systems to combat corruption, such as the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsperson and the creation of the internal audit function (which was previously managed by the executive), led to increased accountability.

vi. Case management reform

Case management reforms under the JTF in Kenya aimed at improving efficiency, reducing backlog, enhancing access to justice and restoring public confidence in the judiciary. The strategy introduced a number of changes.

  • Standardised procedures were introduced for the management of cases from filing of determination.
  • Through the Active Judicial Case Management initiative, judges and magistrates were encouraged and trained to take a proactive role in managing cases, rather than leaving the process entirely to litigants. This included early identification of issues, setting timetables and encouraging ADR mechanisms.
  • The Directorate of Performance Management was created, under which performance management and measurement understandings (PMMUs) to track and improve performance were introduced for every judge, judicial officer and senior administrative staff of the judiciary.
  • Case tracking tools were introduced to monitor progress, reduce delays and identify bottlenecks.
  • Case management rules were formalised and integrated into court operations across all court stations.
  • ‘Judicial service weeks’ were introduced to fast track hearings and determine pending or stalled cases in courts with heavy caseloads and backlog. This was a rapid results initiative (RRI) that was applied in high-burden courts to deliver quick wins and reduce case backlogs. It led to notable decreases in pending cases.
  • The service ‘weeks’ entailed the mobilisation of judges from less busy court stations to go and help a busier station for a period of one week or more, depending on the caseloads. These service weeks targeted towards the oldest cases for clearance. Dormant cases involving parties that were no longer interested in their cases were also targeted for dismissal. The parties were duly notified of the intention to dismiss their cases if they failed to show cause why this should not be done. The effect of this was to unclog the system by getting rid of matters that were unnecessarily stalled in the system.
  • Digitisation of court records was initiated, which laid the foundation for later innovations such as e-filing, virtual hearings and the e-justice system currently being implemented under STAJ.
  • Court-annexed mediation (CAM) was piloted in the Family and Commercial Divisions of the High Court with the aim of enabling the resolution of disputes faster, in a manner that met the best interests of the parties for purposes of reducing the burden on formal litigation. By 2016, CAM had recorded significant settlements, contributing not only to backlog reduction, but also unlocking huge sums of money previously stuck in litigation for circulation in the economy. This initiative led to Kenya attaining a higher rating in the World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index.

2. Human resource development

Recruitment of more judges, magistrates and judicial officers was undertaken, increasing capacity and diversity. The gender parity at 50:50 has almost been achieved. Enhanced training and professional development were stepped up through the Judiciary Training Institute (now the Kenya Judiciary Academy).

3. Enhanced public engagement and public confidence

An improvement in public trust and confidence in the judiciary, as evidenced by various surveys during and after the JTF period, was achieved, while annual State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice Reports (SOJARs) were disseminated to promote transparency and inform the public. Strengthened engagement with stakeholders also took place through Court User Committees and civic education.

4. Policy and legal reform

Policy and legal reform:

  • led and contributed to the review of laws and judicial procedures, particularly after the 2010 Constitution
  • introduced alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms for faster resolution of cases
  • attempted to demystify and decolonise the judiciary by dropping the use of wigs and introducing dress-down Fridays for judges, magistrates and judicial staff during the JTF period.

This latter was not documented as a policy. It was complemented by judiciary marches and open days when the judges, magistrates and staff of the judiciary engaged face to face with the public in well-organised and highly publicised events. The public got an opportunity to seek answers to what they saw as hindrances to justice and get appropriate responses from the institution. This contributed to enhanced public trust and confidence in the institution. The use of wigs was, however, promptly reintroduced and Friday dress-downs dropped during the Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (SJT) era, a shift largely attributable to the more conservative disposition of the new head of the institution.

These successes, together with a significant reduction in the backlog, especially in civil and commercial cases, and the improved public perception of judicial efficiency and integrity, created a foundation for further reforms under the SJT and STAJ blueprints, which built heavily on these case management innovations.

 

2.4 Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (SJT) roadmap (2017–2021)

With the success of the JTF, all the pre-conditions for transformation and excellence in service delivery were in place, providing a conducive platform for the succeeding blueprint, Sustaining Judiciary Transformation for Service Delivery (SJT).21 The SJT roadmap proposed to move the judiciary from institutional capacity building to service delivery.

This phase was to be undertaken through a bottom-up approach, with each court station required to prepare its own service delivery charter which would provide a basis for evaluating individual court station performance. This was in line with the realisation that true transformation of the judiciary meant a positive citizen experience at the courts. The judiciary at this stage had to ensure a qualitative difference in the services offered to them.

The SJT phase focused on six areas.

  1. Automation, digitisation and improvement of work methods.
  2. Operationalisation of development systems.
  3. Enhancing individual accountability.
  4. Enhancing institutional accountability.
  5. Enhancing performance measurement, monitoring and evaluation.
  6. Entrenching policies and manuals already developed.

The SJT framework aimed to complete and consolidate the reforms realised by the JTF, while laying emphasis on targeted improvement of work methods and a corporate culture that emphasised integrity, individual and institutional accountability, and measurable performance. This was expected to lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness at the individual and system levels, while entrenching individual accountability for performance.

The stated objectives were to be achieved through six targeted interventions.

  1. Automation, digitisation and improvement of work methods.
  2. Operationalisation of development systems.
  3. Enhancement of individual accountability.
  4. Enhancement of institutional accountability.
  5. Entrenchment of performance measurement and monitoring and evaluation.
  6. Entrenchment of policies and manuals already developed.

In terms of progression, Table 2.2 presents examples of what can be observed from the implementation of the commitments under JTF and SJT.

From these examples, it is clear that the SJT never departed from the trajectory set by the JTF but rather upscaled and enhanced the interventions that had worked under the previous blueprint.

Despite the successes of both the JTF and SJT, challenges remained – including perennial case backlog and lack of accountability. Addressing these challenges required an approach that would build on the gains made while charting a roadmap towards greater accessibility, with a view to meeting the needs of the public and thereby inspiring public confidence.

Table 2.2. Implementation of commitments under the JTF and SJT

Commitment

JTF (2012–2016)

SJT (2017–2021)

Enhanced access to justice

Establishment of additional High Court stations and decentralisation of the Court of Appeal; creation of mobile courts.

Mediation piloted.

Establishment of tribunals as subordinate courts as per the dictates of the Constitution.

Establishment of more Magistrates’ Courts and increase in mobile courts to marginalised areas.

ADR entrenched and rolled out nationally. Court-annexed mediation processes deepened.

Full institutionalisation of tribunals in the judiciary.

Operationalisation of the Small Claims Courts for quick resolution of small claims disputes.

Case backlog reduction

Reduction by over 50 per cent of backlog in the five years preceding 2017.

Finalisation of cases older than five years, which stood at over 175,000 cases, was prioritised for completion by December 2018.

Enhanced accountability

Creation of the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman (OJO).

Creation of the Internal Audit Function.

Initiation of delinking judiciary accounts from district treasuries under the executive.

Structured engagement with the National Auditor, Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), and Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA).

Strengthening of the OJO with Deputy Chief Justice (DCJ) as the head and a fully-fledged secretariat.

Fast tracking the disciplinary processes of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

Finalisation of the delinking process.

Enhanced collaboration with the same offices.

Automation

Automation as an enabler of justice identified as one of the JTF pillars. Prioritisation of resources of information and communication technology (ICT) initiated and digital policy formulation started.

Digital strategy completed; e-filing and virtual courts in place and functioning.

The need to upscale automation of administrative processes prioritised for the enhancement of transparency and accountability.

Performance measurement and management

Review of institutional organisational structure and job descriptions initiated.

Performance management and measurement understandings (PMMUs) and performance appraisal (PAS) institutionalised and strengthened.

 

2.5 The Social Transformation through Access to Justice vision

The Judiciary Transformation Framework and Sustaining Judiciary Transformation blueprints laid a solid foundation for a robust and more accountable institution by putting in place more responsive internal processes to guarantee better access to justice.

The STAJ vision was borne out of a concern for social transformation. The vision was about a set of processes in which individuals and groups of people bring about large-scale social change, with the aim of improving the quality of life discernible through a just society. It considered the initiatives put in place by the two preceding blueprints, then infused the social transformative promise of the Constitution of Kenya. The purpose of the STAJ vision was to develop a roadmap that would help sustain and enhance the place of Kenya as a democratic, equitable, accountable and participatory society.

Figure 2.1. Evolution of Judiciary Strategic Framework

JTF (2012–2016)

SJT (2017–2021)

STAJ (2021–)

Focused on restoring public confidence in the judiciary through internal clean-up and systemic reforms

Focused on building on gains consolidating and deepening reforms

Focused on people-centred justice and social impact

It is important to note that the STAJ vision is a separate document from the STAJ blueprint. The vision was conceived and developed by the Hon. Justice Martha Koome before she became the Chief Justice, as part of her preparation for the interview with the Judicial Service Commission for the position of Chief Justice. The vision was the precursor to the blueprint and guided the STAJ committee in coming up with the blueprint. The development of both the STAJ vision and blueprint are discussed in the next chapter.

 

Footnotes

12 Kenya Judiciary (2020), ‘AJS Baseline Survey’. https://judiciary.go.ke/download/alternative-justice-systems-baseline-policy-and-policy-framework.  |  [back]

13 Economy Commission (1962, December), Report of the Economy Commission. https://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/CommissionReports/Report-of-the-Economy-Commission.pdf.  |  [back]

14 Kenya Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), Independent Review Commission (no date), Report on the Independent Review Commission on the General Elections held in Kenya on 27 December 2007 (‘Kriegler Commission Report’). www.knchr.org/Portals/0/Reports/Kriegler_Report.pdf?ver=2013-02-12-095936-503.  |  [back]

15 Integrity and Anti-Corruption Committee of the Judiciary (2003), Report of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Committee of the Judiciary. Republic of Kenya.  |  [back]

16 Republic of Kenya (2010), Final Report on the Task Force on Judicial Reforms. https://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Final_Report_of_the_Task_Force_on_Judicial_Reforms.pdf.  |  [back]

17 Kang’ara, S et al. (eds) (2021), Beacons of Judiciary Transformation: Selected Speeches, Writings and Judicial Opinions of Chief Justice Willy Mutunga. Sheria Publishing House.  |  [back]

18 Kenya Judiciary (no date), ‘Judiciary Transformation Framework 2012–2016’. https://judiciary.go.ke/judiciary-transformation-frameworkjtf-2012-2016/.  |  [back]

19 Mutunga, W (2025), interview, 11 July, Nairobi.  |  [back]

20 Republic of Kenya (2010), The Constitution 2010 (KEN). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution/eng@2010-09-03.  |  [back]

21 Kenya Judiciary (no date), ‘Sustaining Judiciary Transformation: A Service Delivery Agenda’. https://judiciary.go.ke/category/our-blueprints/.  |  [back]

Downloads

Additional Downloads
Download full report (PDF)