When impartiality meets expediency: the dilemma of the doctrine of necessity and judicial recusal in delaying trials

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorNjoroge, B. W.
dc.date.accessioned2025-11-14T09:54:57Z
dc.date.available2025-11-14T09:54:57Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.descriptionFull - text undergraduate research project
dc.description.abstractThis study aims to elucidate that the conflict between the doctrine of necessity and the judicial recusal precludes a fair trial due to the violation of Article 50(2)(e) of the Constitution of Kenya which mandates that every accused person should have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay. Amidst the conflict, the right is consistently violated due to the lack of precise definition and a standardised rule for case durations. The conflict between the doctrine of necessity and judicial recusal is pervasive across all levels of courts in the Kenyan judicial system, leading to protracted trial delays. Disqualification proceedings against judges are common, shifting the trial's focus and resulting in prolonged legal processes. The issue is particularly pronounced in the Supreme Court, the ultimate appellate body, where due to its limited size membership the conflict is magnified. Hence, the doctrine of necessity is often invoked to justify quorum deficit, leaving the parties with no avenue for appeal in the final appellate court. This not only erodes public trust in the judiciary but also raises concerns about the assurance of impartial judges. The study adopts desk-based research. The findings of the study indicate the need for reforms within the Kenyan legal system and Constitution to resolve the conflict and guarantee fair trials. The study concludes that pivotal changes should include expanding the Supreme Court bench beyond the mandated seven judges, as per Article 163 of the Constitution to counter quorum deficit arguments by biased judges. The study also proposes a statutory definition of the term ‘unreasonable delay’ to prevent discretionary determinations by judges. Emphasising alternative dispute resolution facilitates the timely conclusion of fair trials. Lastly, it suggests the establishment of a panel of judicial impartiality and emergency board consisting of almost retired judges.
dc.identifier.citationNjoroge, B. W. (2024). When impartiality meets expediency: The dilemma of the doctrine of necessity and judicial recusal in delaying trials [Strathmore University]. http://hdl.handle.net/11071/15846
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11071/15846
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherStrathmore University
dc.titleWhen impartiality meets expediency: the dilemma of the doctrine of necessity and judicial recusal in delaying trials
dc.typeThesis
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
When impartiality meets expediency - the dilemma of the doctrine of necessity and judicial recusal in delaying trials.pdf
Size:
971.96 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
LLB Research Projects (2024)