NEWS INDEPTH: Clerical workers dominate discipline cases at Judiciary

Clerical officers are the most indisciplined among mid and lower-level judicial staff, a report by the Judiciary shows.

Official data shows that of the 94 cases filed with the Judiciary’s Human Resource Management Advisory Committee (HRMAC) against officers in job group PLS8 and below in the fiscal year 2017/18, 48 cases or 51 percent involved clerical officers.

Other registered disciplinary cases in 2017/18 involved support staff that had nine case; secretaries got seven while six cases were against accountants.

Drrivers had five complaints; executive assistants (5); security guards got two; procurement or storekeepers had four discipline cases.

Geting two each were ICT officers and archivists while Human Resource desk and legal researchers got only one each.

“Twenty-five interdictions were effected out of the 94 disciplinary matters registered in the financial year 2017/18, accounting for 26 percent of disciplinary action. Some 53 of them were placed on suspension and another 16 issued with show-cause letters,” the Judiciary said in an annual performance report for 2017/18.

Some rogue clerical officers have over the years been blamed for slow services and mysterious disappearance of key case files in the Judiciary.

The highest number of charges against the judiciary officers in job group PLS 8 and below in 2017/18 included added absenteeism (34 cases), giving false information, gross misconduct, insubordination and misplacing files (39 cases), and tampering with documentation such illegal preparation of sureties, interfering with court records and making documents without authority (12 cases).

These charges shine a spotlight on the Judiciary which is in the public radar for unsatisfactory performance, including delayed administration of justice.

Among other duties, the clerical officers compile statistical records, file documents, including pleadings, letters and receipts; and, assess and collect court fees, deposits and fines.

Registration of cases and opening and retrieving case files; issuance of summonses; proof-reading court proceedings; entering judgments and other court orders also fall under their dockets.

In the financial year 2017/18, the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman received 198 complaints of slow service, poor service (181) and missing files (136).

“Complaints on poor service went up by 129 percent while those on slow service went up by 40 percent from the previous financial year. This may be attributable to greater public awareness of their right to complain to the Office once dissatisfied with the Judiciary services,” the Judiciary said in its report.

Delayed hearing and determination of cases not only delays justice but also means higher spending on legal costs.

Lawyers charge fees based on, among other things, the number of appearances made in court on behalf of their clients.

Data by the Judiciary showed that close to half of the unresolved cases in Kenyan courts have dragged for more than three years — placing focus on efficiency within the Judiciary.

An estimated 45 percent of the 327,928 backlog cases as at June 2018 had been before the courts for more than three years, with the Magistrate’s Court and High Court registering the highest overall backlog.

In Kenya, the maximum appropriate timeline that a case ought to have been finalised from the date of filing is one year.

Any case that exceeds one year before a court is considered a backlog.

“Out of these cases, 55 percent were aged between one and three years, 23 percent between three and five years and 22 per cent were over five years,” the Judiciary said in its latest update.

As of June last year, the majority of the backlog cases were in the Magistrate’s Court at 260,653 cases, followed by High Court at 76,208 cases.

The Supreme Court had only four case backlogs as at the end of June last year — the least across all the levels.

Out of the 407,631 pending cases in Magistrate’s Courts as of June 30, 2018, a total of 260,653 cases were a backlog. “A total of 152,935 cases were aged between one and three years, 54,244 cases between three and five years while 53,474 cases were over five years in age,” the Judiciary said.

A similar massive accumulation of cases, which are more than a year-old in court was witnessed in the High Court.

Out of the 76,208 backlog cases in the High Court as at the end of June last year, 33,380 cases were aged between one to three years, 20,605 between three and five years while 22,223 were above five years.