KENYATTA without admitting new cases, the Judiciary

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

 

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

 

INFLUENCE OF ADOPTION OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ON JUDICIAL
SERVICE DELIVERY: A CASE OF KISUMU HIGH COURT STATION, KISUMU COUNTY-KENYA

 

 

 

 

 

KOSKEY PURITY CHEPKORIR

C153/PT/KER/24125/2013

 

 

 

 

 

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL
SCIENCES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF
ARTS DEGREE OF KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

 

 

JANUARY, 2018

DECLARATION

This proposal has been submitted as my original work and has
not been presented for award of any degree or diploma in any other institution.

Signature ………………………………………….              
Date …………………………..

NAME: KOSKEY CHEPKORIR PURITY

C153/PT/KER/24125/2013

 

 

This proposal has been submitted for review with our
approval as university supervisors

 

Signature ………………………………………….              
Date …………………………..

SUPERVISOR NAME:
………………………………………………………………………………………………

DEPARTMENT: ………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

 

Signature ………………………………………….              
Date …………………………..

SUPERVISOR NAME:
………………………………………………………………………………………………

DEPARTMENT: ………………………………………………………………………………

 

ABSTRACT

The Judicial Case Audit and
Institutional Capacity Survey (2014) revealed that as at 30th June 2013, the
number of pending cases in all courts stood at 426,508, out of which 332,430
were civil and 94,078 were criminal. This implies that with the current courts’
capacity and performance in disposing cases, and without admitting new cases,
the Judiciary requires 3 years to clear all the pending cases in the courts.
Specifically, the High Court requires 13 years, the Magistrates’ Courts requires
2 and a half years and Kadhis’ Courts requires 2 years to clear the pending
cases. These challenges were further compounded by the absence of a system by
which performance could be measured in the Judiciary like other public
institutions. Consequently, in January 2013, Mutunga established a committee to
develop a performance management system for the judiciary. Based on the desk
reviews and experiences from other jurisdictions, the Committee recommended
institutionalization of various court performance measures in the Judiciary.
Among the measures proposed were strategic planning, annual work plans,
performance management and measurement understanding, performance appraisal,
citizens’ service delivery charters, quality management systems, court user and
employee satisfaction surveys as well as performance reporting tools which have
been rolled out gradually since 2015. Consequently, the present study seeks to
investigate the influence of adoption of performance management system on
judicial service delivery: a case of courts under Kisumu High Court, Kisumu
County-Kenya. The study will be guided by the following specific objectives: to
determine the influence of strategic planning on judicial service delivery; to
find out the influence of performance appraisal system on judicial service
delivery; to investigate the influence of quality management systems on
judicial service delivery and to examine the influence of performance reporting
tools on judicial service delivery in the courts under Kisumu High Court. The
focus of this study is the courts falling under the High Court of Kenya at
Kisumu. Thematically, the study will focus on four areas of PBM viz. strategic
planning, performance appraisal, quality management system and performance
reporting tools and their influence on service delivery within the judiciary.
The study will enrich further discourse on improving the performance of the
judiciary through performance management, be an eye opener to the Kenyan public
in ways that they can demand better services from the judiciary and enhance
accountability, provoke and challenge the judiciary to improve and reassess its
performance in line with its constitutional mandate and set framework and
enlighten other judicial jurisdictions in the application of performance
management and measurement to boost service delivery

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION.. 2
ABSTRACT. 3
TABLE OF FIGURES. 5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. 6
CHAPTER ONE.. 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION.. 7
1.1 Background to the
study. 7
1.2 Statement of the
problem.. 9
1.3 Justification. 10
1.4 Research Objectives. 10
1.5 Research Questions. 10
1.6 Significance of the
study. 11
1.7 Delimitation and
limitation of the study. 11
1.8 Conceptual framework. 12
REFERENCES. 14
 

 

 

TABLE OF
FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework showing the relationship between
performance based management practices and service delivery. 13

 

 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DCRT             Daily Courts Returns Template

PBM                Performance
Based Management

QMS               Quality
Management Systems

PMMSC          Performance Management and Measuring
Steering Committee

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

The Judiciary’s core mandate is to
ensure access to justice for all irrespective of status (The
Constitution of Kenya,
2010). This implies an obligation to remove barriers to justice by
taking positive steps to ensure that the Judiciary is open, transparent and
accessible to all. Historically, access to justice for all has been hampered by
inadequate physical infrastructure; long distances to courts; inadequate human
resource capacity; unfriendly court processes and procedures; delays in case
determination; and high cost of litigation among others. These factors have
culminated in huge backlog of cases.

For instance, the Judicial Case
Audit and Institutional Capacity Survey (2014) revealed that as at 30th June
2013, the number of pending cases in all courts stood at 426,508, out of which
332,430 were civil and 94,078 were criminal (The Judiciary of Kenya, 2015a).
The Magistrates’ Courts had the highest number of pending cases, 276,577,
followed by the High Court, 145,596, the Court of Appeal, 4,329, and the Supreme
Court which had 6 cases. This implies that with the current courts’ capacity
and performance in disposing cases, and without admitting new cases, the
Judiciary requires 3 years to clear all the pending cases in the courts.
Specifically, the High Court requires 13 years, the Magistrates’ Courts
requires 2 and a half years and Kadhis’ Courts requires 2 years to clear the
pending cases. Given these scenarios, there is need for innovative measures to
expedite disposition of cases. According to the report, one of the main reasons
for the large caseload in the courts is inadequate personnel. As at July 2014,
the Judiciary had a human resource complement of 4,536 comprising 7 Supreme
Court judges, 29 Court of Appeal Judges, 96 High Court Judges, 497 Magistrates/Kadhis
and 3,904 judicial staff (The Judiciary of Kenya, 2015a).

These challenges were further
compounded by the absence of a system by which performance could be measured in
the Judiciary like other public institutions. Previous attempts at measurement
and evaluation of performance have been unstructured with limited impact on
performance and accountability (Mbugua, 2012).

Consequently, in January 2013,
Mutunga established a committee to develop a performance management system for
the judiciary. Previously, courts submitted monthly statistics on the number of
cases heard, Ngugi said, but “we needed a tool that can give more information.”
To provide the data necessary to evaluate court stations’ and individual
judicial officers’ performance, the committee and Performance Management
Directorate developed a new case tracking tool. After nearly three years of
consultations with judicial officers and testing, the directorate released the
final version of the tool, known as the Daily Court Returns Template, in October
2015 (The Judiciary of Kenya, 2015a).

The template included information
about each active case, the judicial officer responsible for it, and the dates
it had moved from each step in the process to the next. As a case progressed
from filing to judgment, the Performance Management Directorate (DCRT) could
track how long each step took and if it had exceeded specified timelines.
Information about the type of case also facilitated analysis of workloads,
because a simple plea in a disorderly-conduct case required far less time and
effort than a murder case.

Apart from coming up with the DCRT,
the committee was also tasked with; establishing an understanding of
performance management systems in courts; establish an understanding of
performance indicators, targets and measures by judicial officers and staff;
establish an understanding of foundations for sound performance measurement by
Judicial officers and staff; and develop implementation plan for performance
negotiation, vetting, monitoring, evaluation and reporting (The Judiciary of
Kenya, 2015a).

Based on the desk reviews and
experiences from other jurisdictions, the Committee recommended
institutionalization of various court performance measures in the Judiciary.
Among the measures proposed were strategic planning, annual work plans,
performance management and measurement understanding, performance appraisal,
citizens’ service delivery charters, quality management systems, court user and
employee satisfaction surveys as well as performance reporting tools. These
measures have been rolled out gradually from the year 2015 across various
courts in Kenya. The Kisumu High Court has significantly implemented strategic
planning to include annual work plans, performance appraisal to include
sanctions and rewards, quality management systems and performance reporting
tools.

1.2 Statement of the
problem

Judicial
authority is derived from the people of Kenya. Article 159 (2) of the
Constitution provides that in exercising judicial authority, courts and
tribunals ensure that justice shall be
done to all and not be delayed irrespective of status while fostering alternative forms of dispute resolution
including reconciliation, mediation,
arbitration and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms (Constitution of
Kenya, 2010). Moreover, the courts and tribunals should ensure that the purpose and principles of the
Constitution are protected and promoted
while disseminating justice.

After the promulgation of the new
constitution, there was an increased demand by the citizenry for accountability
from public institutions. The Judiciary has in the past been characterised by
inaccessibility and undue delays in dispensing justice, leading to loss of
public trust and confidence despite several endeavours to improve performance.
Since the Judiciary lacked an integrated performance management and measurement
system, there was no way to ascertaining its performance. Several efforts were
made in the past to address these challenges which were instituted either as
part of government-wide reforms, or as internal attempts to institute
performance systems in the Judiciary.

The design and implementation of
Performance Based Management (PBM) by the Performance Management and
Measurement Steering Committee (PMMSC) heralded a new. With sections of the PBM
being implemented in stages, the citizens and entire judiciary had high hopes
of a better efficient judiciary system, the case duration, costs and qualities
were expected to meet the expectation of a rejuvenated system. Today, most
aspects of the PBM have been implemented across courts in Kenya (The Judiciary
of Kenya, 2015b). Notably, the courts under Kisumu high court have been able to
implement major components including strategic planning to include annual work
plans, performance appraisal to include sanctions and rewards, quality
management systems and performance reporting tools (The Judiciary of Kenya,
2017). However, the impact of PBM on judicial service delivery has not been
assessed after the implementation of the system. Moreover, citizens still feel
disgruntled at the rate at which they receive justice as well as the persistent
corruption reported within the corridors of justice. Further, no recent study
has document the impact of various performance based management measures on
service delivery in the judiciary. It is against this background that the
present study seeks to investigate the influence of adoption of performance
management system on judicial service delivery: a case of courts under Kisumu
High Court, Kisumu County-Kenya.

1.3 Justification

According to the 2016/17 state of
the judiciary report, Kisumu High Court ranked 9th among the High
Courts in terms of cases filed with 736 cases thus appearing among the courts
with the highest cases filed. On a positive noted, the ranked 3rd in
terms of cases resolved with 2, 029 cases resolved. Consequently, the court had
2, 694 pending cases by the end of the 2016-2017 FY thus ranking at 15th.
This shows that the High Court had been performing admirably in terms of case
clearance leading to reduction on the pending cases of the years. In the year
2013, Kisumu High Court had 4,429 pending cases which rose to 6,564 in 2014 and
then 6,863 in 2015 (The Judiciary of Kenya, 2015). However, the court has
witnessed a great decline in pending cases up to 2,694 by 2017 since the
implementation of PBM. Therefore, with significant indication of effect on case
clearance, Kisumu High Court provides the ideal set up for investigating the
impact of the adoption of PBM on judicial service delivery (The Judiciary of
Kenya, 2017).

1.4 Research
Objectives

       
i.           
To determine the influence of strategic planning
on judicial service delivery in the courts under Kisumu High Court.

     
ii.           
To find out the influence of performance
appraisal system on judicial service delivery in the courts under Kisumu High
Court.

   
iii.           
To investigate the influence of quality
management systems on judicial service delivery in the courts under Kisumu High
Court.

   
iv.           
To examine the influence of performance
reporting tools on judicial service delivery in the courts under Kisumu High
Court.

1.5 Research
Questions

       
i.           
How does strategic planning affect judicial
service delivery in the courts under Kisumu High Court?

     
ii.           
To what extent has performance appraisal system
influenced judicial service delivery in the courts under Kisumu High Court?

   
iii.           
How does quality management system influence
judicial service delivery in the courts under Kisumu High Court?

   
iv.           
To what extent do performance reporting tools
affect judicial service delivery in the courts under Kisumu High Court?

1.6 Significance
of the study

The significance of this study cannot
be overemphasized. The study will enrich further discourse on improving the
performance of the judiciary through performance management. It is also hoped
that this study will be an eye opener to the Kenyan public in ways that they
can demand better services from the judiciary and enhance accountability. The
study will also provoke and challenge the judiciary to improve and reassess its
performance in line with its constitutional mandate and set framework.

The study will also enlighten other
judicial jurisdictions in the application of performance management and
measurement to boost service delivery.

1.7 Delimitation
and limitation of the study

The focus of this study is the
courts falling under the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu, it will assess how
courts falling under the High Court of Kisumu have embraced performance based
management, enhanced its implementation and its impact on judicial service
delivery in the courts. Thematically, the study will focus on four areas of PBM
viz. strategic planning, performance appraisal, quality management system and
performance reporting tools and their influence on service delivery within the
judiciary.

The study may be limited by the
nature of people working within and around the courts. Some of the potential
respondents may be unwilling to provide honest information required for the
study. As such, some may opt to only provide affirmative or positive
information for fear of victimization. Thus, the researcher will explain to the
respondents the purpose and value of the study alleviate any fears thus
establish a good relationship with the respondents.

1.8 Conceptual framework

Conceptual framework may be defined as an end result of bringing together
a number of related concepts. For this reason, the conceptual framework helps
the researcher to study the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations,
beliefs, and theories that supports and informs research. Orodho (2003) defined a conceptual framework as
a visual or written product, one that “explains, either graphically or in
narrative form, the main things to be studied, the key factors, concepts, or
variables and the presumed relationships among them. The conceptual framework
showing the relationship among variables of the study is presented in Figure
1.1

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework showing the relationship
between performance based management practices and service delivery

The framework shows that performance
based management elements such as strategic planning, performance appraisal,
quality management systems and performance reporting tools (independent
variables) influence judicial service delivery (dependent variable). This shows
that there was a relationship between independent variable and dependent
variable.

 

REFERENCES

Mbugua,
C. K. (2012). Influence of the Electronic
Case Management System (ELCM) on the effectiveness of court service delivery:
the case of the Eldoret Court Station, Kenya, (unpublished Masters Thesis)
University of Nairobi, Kenya

Orodho, A. J. (2003). Essentials of Education and Social
Sciences Research Method. Nairobi: Masola Publishers.

The
Constitution of Kenya (2010).
Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c8508822.html accessed 9
January 2018

The Judiciary of Kenya (2015a).
Institutionalising Performance Management
and Measurement in the Judiciary. Report by Performance Management and
Measurement Steering Committee. Nairobi, the Judiciary of Kenya.

The
Judiciary of Kenya (2015b). State of the
Judiciary and the Administration of Justice: Annual Report 2014-2015 (5th
Ed). Nairobi, the Judiciary of Kenya.

The
Judiciary of Kenya (2017). State of the
Judiciary and the Administration of Justice: Annual Report 2014-2015 (6th
Ed). Nairobi, the Judiciary of Kenya.