Reflections on Emerging Practices and Developments in the Field of Law Reporting: Lessons from Kenya

Many users and/or consumers of law reports grapple with two major questions. The first question revolves around the issue why some judicial decisions are referred to as reported decisions, while others are referred to as unreported decisions. This question therefore deals with the dichotomy between reported judicial decisions and unreported judicial decisions. The second question flows from the first and relates to which categories of decisions appear in law reports (and therefore are classified as ‘reported’) and which ones do not (and therefore are classified as ‘unreported’). Put the other way around, that second question becomes: what are the criteria for selecting the judicial decisions that appear and do not appear in law reports? This article therefore attempts to make a modest contribution to the field of law reporting by providing answers to those two questions. It does so by providing some reflections from the perspective of a practising law reporter based in Kenya. The paper uses various cross-cutting thematic areas to demonstrate why some judicial decisions are reported while others are not. The views provided hereunder are therefore merely an introductory note based on the emerging practices and developments in the field of law reporting in Kenya as used by the National Council for Law Reporting (the official state agency mandated to publish the Kenya Law Reports)

Raila Odinga and Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and Others [2013] KLR-SCK Petition No.5 of 2013 & No. 1 of 2017

Since the establishment of the Supreme Court of Kenya in 2011, it has so far determined two disputes arising from presidential election petitions. From the outset, it is important to clarify that this commentary does not purport to review the decisions of the 2013 and 2017 presidential election petitions. It only seeks to review and critique one salient aspect that emerges from the Supreme Court of Kenya’s approach in the treatment of rejected votes in those presidential election disputes. The case note criticises the Supreme Court of Kenya’s approach which seems to favour the exclusion of rejected votes in the final computation of presidential election winners. It presents an argument that rejected votes are important in the computation of presidential election winners. It does that by raising three major arguments. The first argument flows from a rights perspective; the right to vote. The second argument flows from the constitutional requirement that presidential election winners ought to garner a fifty plus one percentage of the votes to win an electoral contest. The third argument flows from the legal distinction between votes cast, valid votes cast, spoilt ballots, stray votes and rejected votes. Ultimately, the paper concludes by presenting a case for why rejected votes matter in a presidential election petition and why they should be included in the computation of winners of presidential election contests

Raila Odinga and Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and Others [2013] KLR-SCK Petition No.5 of 2013 & No. 1 of 2017

Since the establishment of the Supreme Court of Kenya in 2011, it has so far determined two disputes arising from presidential election petitions. From the outset, it is important to clarify that this commentary does not purport to review the decisions of the 2013 and 2017 presidential election petitions. It only seeks to review and critique one salient aspect that emerges from the Supreme Court of Kenya’s approach in the treatment of rejected votes in those presidential election disputes. The case note criticises the Supreme Court of Kenya’s approach which seems to favour the exclusion of rejected votes in the final computation of presidential election winners. It presents an argument that rejected votes are important in the computation of presidential election winners. It does that by raising three major arguments. The first argument flows from a rights perspective; the right to vote. The second argument flows from the constitutional requirement that presidential election winners ought to garner a fifty plus one percentage of the votes to win an electoral contest. The third argument flows from the legal distinction between votes cast, valid votes cast, spoilt ballots, stray votes and rejected votes. Ultimately, the paper concludes by presenting a case for why rejected votes matter in a presidential election petition and why they should be included in the computation of winners of presidential election contests

Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 2 others v Attorney General & 4 others [2020] eKLR Civil Appeal No 13 & 10 of 2015

Kenya’s Court of Appeal delivered the decision in Okiya Omtata Okoiti & 2 Others v Attorney General & 4 others on the 19th of June, 2020. This decision was an appeal arising from the High Court and it revolved around a dispute regarding the construction of the standard gauge railway in Kenya

Reflections on Emerging Practices and Developments in the Field of Law Reporting: Lessons from Kenya

Many users and/or consumers of law reports grapple with two major questions. The first question revolves around the issue why some judicial decisions are referred to as reported decisions, while others are referred to as unreported decisions. This question therefore deals with the dichotomy between reported judicial decisions and unreported judicial decisions. The second question flows from the first and relates to which categories of decisions appear in law reports (and therefore are classified as ‘reported’) and which ones do not (and therefore are classified as ‘unreported’). Put the other way around, that second question becomes: what are the criteria for selecting the judicial decisions that appear and do not appear in law reports? This article therefore attempts to make a modest contribution to the field of law reporting by providing answers to those two questions. It does so by providing some reflections from the perspective of a practising law reporter based in Kenya. The paper uses various cross-cutting thematic areas to demonstrate why some judicial decisions are reported while others are not. The views provided hereunder are therefore merely an introductory note based on the emerging practices and developments in the field of law reporting in Kenya as used by the National Council for Law Reporting (the official state agency mandated to publish the Kenya Law Reports)

A Stochastic hierarchical system steady-state availability model

Paper presented at the 5th Strathmore International Mathematics Conference (SIMC 2019), 12 - 16 August 2019, Strathmore University, Nairobi, KenyaStochastic models are adept at modeling the dependability attributes of critical systems. The dependability attributes include availability, reliability, safety, integrity, maintainability, survivability, performance and confidentiality. This paper presents a novel method of computing the steady-state availability of a system using the closed form approach. Continuous Time Markov Chain models are instrumental in deriving the steadystate availability balance equations of the system modules from which the closed form solutions are obtained. Imperfect coverage and switch-over are incorporated into the Continuous Time Markov Chain models where applicable.University of Nairobi, Kenya

Reflections on Emerging Practices and Developments in the Field of Law Reporting: Lessons from Kenya

Many users and/or consumers of law reports grapple with two major questions. The first question revolves around the issue why some judicial decisions are referred to as reported decisions, while others are referred to as unreported decisions. This question therefore deals with the dichotomy between reported judicial decisions and unreported judicial decisions. The second question flows from the first and relates to which categories of decisions appear in law reports (and therefore are classified as ‘reported’) and which ones do not (and therefore are classified as ‘unreported’). Put the other way around, that second question becomes: what are the criteria for selecting the judicial decisions that appear and do not appear in law reports? This article therefore attempts to make a modest contribution to the field of law reporting by providing answers to those two questions. It does so by providing some reflections from the perspective of a practising law reporter based in Kenya. The paper uses various cross-cutting thematic areas to demonstrate why some judicial decisions are reported while others are not. The views provided hereunder are therefore merely an introductory note based on the emerging practices and developments in the field of law reporting in Kenya as used by the National Council for Law Reporting (the official state agency mandated to publish the Kenya Law Reports)

Raila Odinga and Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and Others [2013] KLR-SCK Petition No.5 of 2013 & No. 1 of 2017

Since the establishment of the Supreme Court of Kenya in 2011, it has so far determined two disputes arising from presidential election petitions. From the outset, it is important to clarify that this commentary does not purport to review the decisions of the 2013 and 2017 presidential election petitions. It only seeks to review and critique one salient aspect that emerges from the Supreme Court of Kenya’s approach in the treatment of rejected votes in those presidential election disputes. The case note criticises the Supreme Court of Kenya’s approach which seems to favour the exclusion of rejected votes in the final computation of presidential election winners. It presents an argument that rejected votes are important in the computation of presidential election winners. It does that by raising three major arguments. The first argument flows from a rights perspective; the right to vote. The second argument flows from the constitutional requirement that presidential election winners ought to garner a fifty plus one percentage of the votes to win an electoral contest. The third argument flows from the legal distinction between votes cast, valid votes cast, spoilt ballots, stray votes and rejected votes. Ultimately, the paper concludes by presenting a case for why rejected votes matter in a presidential election petition and why they should be included in the computation of winners of presidential election contests