Courts at fault for majority of case adjournments, report shows
The Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi.
What you need to know:
- The external reasons cumulatively account for 67 per cent of the cases adjourned.
- Adjournments contribute to case backlogs and reduce the efficiency of courts.
One in three cases that the courts adjourned in the last year was due to reasons in the Judiciary’s control, an analysis of data by the Institute of Economic Affairs has shown.
Reasons for adjournment included the courts being indisposed, judgments not being ready, and the court not sitting.
According to the State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice Report, 33 per cent of all cases are adjourned because of internal reasons.
"These reasons are within the court’s control and may indicate a need for improved administrative processes, scheduling, and resource management,” the institute said in its analysis.
The Magistrate Courts accounted for the highest number of adjournments at 83.5 per cent, followed by the High Court.
The Supreme Court only adjourned one case, accounting for less than one per cent of the adjournments while the Court of Appeal adjourned 1,295 cases in the same period.
A detailed review of causes of adjournments indicates that external reasons cumulatively account for 67 per cent of the cases adjourned in the financial year 2022/23.
“These reasons include parties not present or ready (45 per cent), witness (expert) or report not ready (28 per cent), advocate not present/ready (17 per cent) and prosecution not ready or not present (7 per cent),” the report states.
In the period, a total of 2,365,709 case events scheduled for hearings, judgment, and ruling delivery, of which, 210,592 events were adjourned.
“Dividing 210,592 adjournments of cases by 52 weeks, [the Institute of Economic Affairs] finds that there are at least 4,050 case adjournments every week. That is 101 cases for every working hour,” the institute said.
The Magistrates’ Courts, according to the report, handle a majority of the cases (74.2 per cent), followed by the High Court (11.5 per cent), Environment and Land Court (ELC) (4.2 per cent), Kadhis’ Courts (5.3 per cent), Small Claims Courts (1.2 per cent), Tribunals (1.3 per cent), Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) (1.9 per cent), Court of Appeal (0.4 per cent), and 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,” the Institute of Economic Affairs explained.
As a result, Magistrates’ Courts registered 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.
To reduce the seemingly high rates of adjournments, the report says “various administrative measures such as early preparation of leave schedules, training calendars, and establishing realistic daily cause lists are being entrenched through the Performance Management and Measurement Understandings (PMMU). These measures will be monitored to ensure compliance.”
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, says the Institute of Economic Affairs
Adjournments, often resulting from both external and internal factors, contribute to case backlogs and reduce the efficiency of courts, the institute explained.
The institute recommended that the Judicial Service Commission should strive to reduce adjournment levels through administrative efficiencies and stringent adherence to court timetable.
“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,” the institute said.
