The extent at which crime cases are being heard in Kenya is at a very high rate.
Each and everyday the corridors of Justice are filled with different cases. But the many cases are a reprieve to Chief Justice David Maraga who has been complaining over a million times of under funding of the courts.
The Judiciary’s revenue collection, mainly earned from court fees, fines and forfeitures rose by 5.2 percent to Sh2.1 billion on improved cash collection methods, though it fell below estimates.
The improved collection, covering 12 months to June last year, followed the Judiciary’s implementation of a policy on non-collection of cash.
Instead, all court stations were directed to use cashless systems, mainly direct banking, M-Pesa and agency banking.
“These avenues have minimised the risks associated with the handling of cash and boosted revenue collections and accountability— the increase was as a result of improved cash collection methods,” says the Judiciary in the annual report for 2017/2018 period.
It adds that the revenue control measures were tightened and enhanced to cap revenue leakages within the Judiciary.
“The Judiciary introduced a revenue sweeping policy whereby revenue collected by court stations across the country is auto-transferred to the main revenue collection account every month to minimise the amount of revenue held by court stations,” the report says.
The money collected is about 71 percent of the Sh3 billion that the Judiciary had targeted although there was an actual increase in the amount netted.
The Judiciary receives revenue on behalf of the national government.
This is paid directly into the Treasury as per the 2010 resolution by Parliament requiring that all court fees and other appropriations-in-aid received by the Judiciary be transferred directly to the Treasury.
During the period, fees grew by 13 percent from Sh847 million to Sh954 million. This growth was attributed to increase in filed cases.
There were additional cases handled in the period under review leading to this growth, according to the Judiciary.
“The comparative growth in fees could be attributed to increase in filed cases from 344,180 filed in the financial year 2016/2017 to 402,243 cases filed in 2017/2018,” said the Judiciary.