Tribunals Cleared 129% of Their Caseload, but the Bill to Anchor Them in the Judiciary Still Isn't Law.

Key Data

Tribunals filed 11,246 cases and resolved 14,536, a 129% clearance rate, with 27 of 43 gazetted tribunals now under the Judiciary (SOJAR FY 2024/25, Table 2.4.1; s.2.4.17, Ch.2 p.85). Four tribunals — the RRT, Cooperatives, Business Premises Rent and Tax Appeals — accounted for 95% of all tribunal filings, with the Business Premises Rent Tribunal busiest at 3,977 cases (s.2.4.17, p.85). Tribunal backlog was 3,866, about 34% of pending matters, and 70% of that backlog is over three years old (Figure 2.4.37, p.86). In Attorney General v Okoiti & 3 others, Civil Appeal E416 of 2021, [2025] KECA 309 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that local tribunals are subordinate courts that ought to be under the Judiciary, and that more than ten years' delay in enacting the enabling law is unreasonable (Ch.3.1.2, Court of Appeal jurisprudence, p.108+). Reading note: the figures and holdings are reported in the SOJAR; the reading and actions below are CounselConnect's interpretation, not legal or financial advice.

What Is Happening

Tribunals had a strong year on paper. They resolved well above intake, a 129% clearance rate, and 27 of the 43 gazetted tribunals now sit under the Judiciary's administration. The work concentrates: four tribunals carry 95% of filings, and the Business Premises Rent Tribunal alone took 3,977 matters.

The structure underneath is still unsettled. The Tribunals Bill that would give a full legal framework for transitioning tribunals to the Judiciary is not yet enacted, and the Court of Appeal in AG v Okoiti called the decade-long delay unreasonable while confirming tribunals belong under the Judiciary. Strong throughput, weak statutory footing. The backlog tells its own story: a third of pending matters, and seventy per cent of that aged over three years.

Why It Is Happening

Legal and regulatory: tribunals were created piecemeal under separate statutes, and the Constitution under Article 169 treats them as subordinate courts, but the consolidating law has stalled in Parliament. Institutional and capacity: the four busy tribunals carry the load while the long-aged backlog signals matters the system has not yet reached.

Practice Impact and Revenue

If your practice touches the busy tribunals — rent, tax, cooperatives, retirement benefits — the throughput is in your favour: matters are being resolved above intake. But the unsettled framework is a live argument, not background noise, because jurisdiction and appeal pathways can be challenged while the enabling law is missing. The aged backlog also tells you which matters will move and which will sit: a three-year-old tribunal file is in the slowest part of the system.

Revenue Impact

The four high-volume tribunals are a steady, specialised practice with a clearance rate that gets your client to an outcome rather than a queue. Rent and tax tribunal work in particular rewards a fixed-fee, repeat-instruction model because the matters are standardised and the volume is there. The unsettled jurisdiction question is also billable: clients with tribunal exposure will pay for advice on appeal routes and forum while the framework is in flux.

Strategic Insight — What Most Advocates Will Miss

Most advocates read a 129% tribunal clearance rate as good news and stop. The miss is the gap between performance and footing. A system resolving above intake on an incomplete statutory base is efficient and contestable at the same time, and the Okoiti decision is an invitation to test jurisdiction and appeal pathways while the Tribunals Bill is still pending. The advocate who knows both the throughput and the structural soft spot can choose tribunal work for speed and challenge it on jurisdiction when that serves the client. This is CounselConnect's reading, offered as opinion and not as legal or financial advice.