Individual Corruption

According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010, the judicial system is perceived by households to be one of the most corrupt institutions in Kenya, ranked joint second behind the police in the survey. This perception is supported by the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, according to which, despite an increase in salaries, the Kenyan judiciary is widely regarded as one of the most corrupt institutions in the country. Nonetheless, Transparency International Kenya's East African Bribery Index 2009 reports that the likelihood of encountering bribery in the judiciary has slightly decreased compared to the 2008 index.

Business Corruption

According to the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2007, the vast majority of companies do not show much faith in the legal system. Legal fees are high, and although small and medium-sized companies may be able to initiate a case, sustaining a case is difficult and many parties will opt to settle their dispute outside court, as court processes are long and highly bureaucratic. According to the Freedom House 2011, courts are understaffed and underfinanced, suffering from a lack of capacity. The solicitation and acceptance of bribes by court officials in order to provide a favourable verdict is not uncommon. The source concludes that judicial corruption remains an impediment to the rule of law.

Political Corruption

According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, the Kenyan judiciary has been seen by international development agencies as an agent of the executive and deeply corrupt. Political interference in judicial appointments and rulings has been common in the past, and the appointment process remains non-transparent. According to Freedom House 2006, President Kibaki criticised the extent of corruption in the judiciary and ordered the Minister of Justice to establish a process to identify corrupt judges. As a result, several judges and magistrates were suspended, which immediately won public approval. However, the subsequent appointment process raised concerns about the selection criteria and the lack of transparency. There is no process for vetting judges, and they are often appointed by the President in practice, as reported in Global Integrity 2009.

In December 2009, a High Court Judge was charged with corruption relating to the controversial sale of a prime land belonging to National Social Security Fund, as reported in a 2009 article by Business Daily. Allegedly, the judge has fraudulently paid the company Kipkenda, Lilan and Co. Advocates KES 8 million for services that Kenya's Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC) claims were not adequately rendered. According to the US Department of State 2011, a total of 23 judges were sacked for corruption in 2003 after the government made it mandatory for certain public officials to declare their wealth.

According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, the Kenyan judiciary in August 2008 announced that it would introduce modern information technology systems in order to clear the systems of backlogs and corruption. This is further reported in International Legal Assistance Consortium Restoring Integrity 2010, where it is noted that an electronic case management system is urgently needed in all courts in Kenya, as well as an appropriate judicial training in such a system.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- It takes 40 procedures over an average of 465 days at a cost of 47% of the claim to enforce a commercial contract in Kenya.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the Kenyan judiciary's level of independence from influences of government, citizens and companies a score of 2.9 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.5 and 3.4 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 3.8 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

- 39% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 43% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 reported to having paid a bribe.

Transparency International Kenya: The East African Bribery Index 2009:
- With a score of 54.4%, the judiciary is ranked the third most corrupt institution in Kenya by respondents in this citizen survey.

- The likelihood of encountering bribery in interactions with the judiciary is reported to be 86.1%.

- 57.8% of the respondents reported to having paid a bribe in their interaction with the police.

- 17.3% of respondents interacting with the judiciary report that the consequence of refusing to bribe was a denial of service.

- The average size of bribe paid to the judiciary is KES 5,627.

Afrobarometer: Summary of Results Kenya 2008:
- 20% of the household respondents report to not trust the courts of law.

- 35% of the household respondents believe that most or all of the judges and magistrates are involved in corruption.

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2007:
- A little more than 22% of companies polled believe the court system is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

- 13% of companies identify the functioning of the courts as a major business constraint.