Patricia B Angaya*
The main purpose of statutes is to promote access to justice. To achieve this purpose, it is necessary that statutes are interpreted or construed in a manner that determines the statute's significance. Interpretation of a statute is the process of analysing the real intention of a legislative body whose intentions are stipulated in the form of statutes.[i] Construction of a statute on the other hand is making sense of the wordings of the statute and arriving at a conclusion based on reasoning and logic.[ii] Interpretation occurs when the statutory texts are unambiguous and plain while construction occurs when the meaning behind a statutory text is ambiguous or uncertain. In Kenya, the courts are vested with the constitutional authority to interpret legislations, which is done by construing the legislature's intention based on previous interpretation traditions.
In the spirit of proper statutory interpretation, the late justice David Majanja delivered a celebrated judgement in the case of Crown Beverages Limited v MFI Document Solutions Limited, an appeal from the Small Claims Court to the High Court, where he held that statutory provisions should be interpreted in a manner that promotes justice.[iii] Notably, one of the grounds raised on appeal was violation of Section 34(2) of the Small Claims Court Act, which provides that judgement of the court shall be delivered on the same day or within three days upon conclusion of the hearing.[iv] It was the appellant's contention that the Small Claims Court had contravened Section 34(2) of the Act by delivering the judgement more than a month later, thereby stripping itself of jurisdiction, as a consequence rendering the judgement null and void.
Whilst the good judge appreciated that Section 34(2) of the Small Claims Court Act is laid out in mandatory terms, he noted that the courts are obligated to look at the context of the provisions in light of the guiding principles presented before them.[v] He opined that statutory provisions in relation to judgement delivery are meant to be directory not mandatory. Therefore, it can be deduced that it was not the intention of the legislative drafters of the Small Claims Court Act to invalidate proceedings which contravened Section 34(2), as prayed for by the appellant in the instant case, as doing so will be a blatant disregard of the statutory objectives and an injustice to the parties of the case.[vi] The legal meaning of a statute is determined through reading the provision, considering the history behind the enactment and looking at what the courts have said about it.[vii] If uncertainty or contest still remains, the statute is subjected to the courts for interpretation. It is worth noting that judicial interpretation is based on statutory texts only which limits the court's discretion.[viii] Solely focusing on judicial interpretation through case law gives an impression that judge-made law is superior to legislation.[ix]
Justice Majanja gave meaning to the disputed Section 34(2) of the Small Claims Court Act by demonstrating that parliament did not intend to invalidate a judgement for being delivered late but rather encourage the magistrates and judges to work within requisite timelines to ensure litigants access justice. The late judge referred to previous judicial thinking in case laws regarding invalidating judgements based on delayed delivery. In the case of Manchester Outfitters Services Limited v Standard Chartered Financial Services Limited,[x] the trial judge delivered his judgement after five years leading to an appeal. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that there are circumstances where inordinate delivery of judgement is prejudicial to the parties, in which event, the court may set it aside.[xi] The court further noted that the vice in a delayed judgement was not just the mere fact of delay but lack of accountability for by the delay by a judicial officer. Further, in the case of Nyagwoka Ogora v Francis Osoro, the appellant complained that the judgement appealed from had been delivered outside the maximum delay period of 42 days as contemplated by the rules, therefore making it void or voidable.[xii] The judges were of the view that the rule was not intended to deprive a trial judge of jurisdiction to pronounce judgement in a case he heard. Inordinate delay and persistent non-compliance should be a call to censure the judicial officer as opposed to punishing litigants by invalidating a duly delivered judgement.
Access to justice particularly through timely judgement delivery is a crucial feature that has been addressed in the Kenyan laws. The Constitution provides for the right to access to justice for all persons whose realisation of this right is bestowed upon the state.[xiii]Courts and tribunals are required to deliver justice with no delay[xiv] and without undue regard to procedural technicalities.[xv] The Civil Procedure Act is a guide to the courts that while handling all matters before them, they should ensure there is just determination of the proceedings, efficient disposal of the business of the court, efficient use of the available judicial and administrative resources, timely disposal of the proceedings at a cost affordable by the respective parties and use of suitable technology.[xvi] Further, the Civil Procedure Rules stipulates that the court shall pronounce judgements within sixty days from the conclusion of hearing.[xvii] The Court of Appeal rules provide that at the close of a hearing of an application or appeal, a decision may be rendered by the court within 90 days.[xviii] These statutes must be interpreted in harmony to form a regulatory framework in accessing justice.
The late honourable justice Majanja was a distinguished jurist who will be remembered as nothing short of a key contributor to the development of Kenya's transformative jurisprudence after the 2010 Constitution. His recognition of the law as a tool for ordering lives and keen focus on its effects on people's lives obligated him to render sober and empathetic decisions. His notable respect to justice and due process ensured that many people accessed justice as envisioned by the constitution. This can be attributed to the several judgements he rendered which are guiding precedents for both courts of law and administrative bodies.
Rest in power judge!
* The author is a holding-over Associate at the firm of Mukami Njeru & Associates Advocates. She holds a Post-Graduate Diploma in Law from the Kenya School of Law and a Bachelor of Laws from Kabarak University. She is a determined legal researcher and a published writer with acute interests in human rights, governance and constitutional law. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
[i] Shah Mohammad and Boktiar Nayeem, 'An introduction statutory interpretation and the role of court with common law approach of legal construction,' ResearchGate (2021) <https://www.researchgate.net>on 3 September 2024.
[ii] Mohammad and Nayeem, 'An introduction statutory interpretation' 3.
[iii] Crown Beverages Ltd v MFI Document Solutions Ltd, Civil Appeal E833 of 2022, Judgement of the High Court at Nairobi (2023) eKLR.
[iv] Small Claims Court Act (No 2 of 2016), Section 34 (2)
[v] Crown Beverages Ltd v MFI Document Solutions Ltd, Civil Appeal E833 of 2022, Judgement of the High Court at Nairobi (2023) para 9.
[vi] Crown Beverages Ltd v MFI Document Solution Ltd, para 9.
[vii] Kate Galloway, 'Statutory Interpretation and Access to Justice: Text, Context and Purpose,' SSRN (2015) <https://papers.ssrn.com> on 3 September 2024.
[viii] Mohammad and Nayeem, 'An introduction statutory interpretation' 5.
[ix] Kate Galloway, 'Statutory Interpretation and Access to Justice' 4.
[x] Manchester Outfitters Services Limited and another v Standard Chartered Financial Services Limited and another, Civil Appeal No 88 of 2000, Judgement of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (2002) eKLR.
[xi] Manchester Outfitters Services Limited and another v Standard Chartered Financial Services Limited and another, 3.
[xii] Nyagwoka Ogora alias Kennedy Kemoni Bwogora v Francis Osoro Maiko, Civil Appeal No. 271 of 2001, Judgement of the High Court at Nairobi (2004) eKLR.
[xiii] Constitution of Kenya (2010), Article 48.
[xiv] Constitution of Kenya (2010), Article 159 (1) (b)
[xv] Constitution of Kenya (2010), Article 159 (1) (d)
[xvi] Civil Procedure Act (No. 6 of 2008), Section 1B.
[xvii] Civil Procedure Rules (2020), Order 21, rule 1.
[xviii] Court of Appeal Rules (2022), Rule 37 (1).
