It was a great honour to serve as the inaugural legal researchers for the indefatigable, energetic and exceptionally intelligent Justice David Majanja beginning in 2012 within the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court.
This period was particularly significant for Kenya as the nation transitioned to a decentralised system of governance after decades of centralism. Justice Majanja joined the bench at a pivotal moment, just before the first general election under the 2010 Constitution, which was held in March 2013.
This period marked the beginning of the new devolved system of governance, bringing a mix of excitement and challenges as the country embarked on a fresh constitutional journey.
Justice Majanja, alongside Justices Mumbi Ngugi and Isaac Lenaola (now Justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, respectively), formed an intellectual powerhouse in the Constitutional and Human Rights Division. The new Constitution's Bill of Rights provisions required careful interpretation and clarification, opening floodgates to numerous cases in the High Court in Milimani.
Justice Majanja and his colleagues meticulously clarified the division's jurisdiction, emphasising that it was not a supervisory body over other High Court divisions or specialised courts. He often dismissed cases seeking to appeal decisions from courts of equal status, describing them as "collateral attacks."
Between 2012 and 2013, Kenya faced numerous significant legal challenges, including the delimitation of boundaries and election-related disputes. A five-judge bench, with Justice Majanja as vice chairperson, heard 147 cases challenging the IEBC's constituency and ward boundaries.
He coordinated the team, ensuring the timely resolution of disputes. The bench resolved the delimitation dispute within the three-month legal requirement, with only one appeal against their decision. Justice Majanja also played a pivotal role in interpreting the election date for the 2013 election, showcasing his remarkable judicial acumen.
He did not shy away from the unbeaten path, such as the duty to provide reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in employment (Paul Pkiach Anupa Case) and the Wilson Siringi Case that upheld legal capacity of persons with mental illness to consent in line with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Justice Majanja's exceptional court management skills contributed to the speedy conclusion of files. His diligent approach was evident as he arrived early each day thoroughly prepared. He actively engaged in hearings adeptly directing counsel to focus on specific issues, hence, avoiding unnecessary lengthy submissions.
His profound grasp of the law and emerging jurisprudence demanded thorough preparation from advocates appearing before him. As a researcher, one had to stay perpetually alert, constantly delivering relevant authorities on short notice, reflecting the Honourable Judge’s rigorous standards.
Justice Majanja embodied the wisdom of Pablo Picasso: "Only put off until tomorrow what you are willing to die having left undone." After hearing parties in an application, he often paused, wrote his ruling within minutes, and delivered it promptly.
His efficiency ensured litigants often left his court with a complete set of documents—the judgment or ruling and proceedings—on the same day. His ability to type many of his proceedings and judgments contributed significantly to the speedy resolution of cases and the clearing of backlogs.
Justice Majanja was frequently empanelled in high-profile cases, such as the constitutionality of the CDF Act, 2013, first determination of the composition of the county assemblies, the integrity of aspirants for the 2022 election and, more recently, the Housing Levy case and implementation of Finance Act case.
As vice chairperson of the Judiciary Working Committee on Elections, he was instrumental in setting up a secretariat that supported the resolution of 388 election disputes within six months. His efforts demonstrated Kenya's commitment to respecting, promoting and protecting the fundamental right to vote, leading to the committee's elevation to permanent status as the Judiciary Committee on Elections.
When the judicial researcher programme began and judges had to share researchers, he would recommend his researchers to judges who needed assistance. We often quipped that we were considered 'tools and equipment', to be lent at will to whoever needed them.
Nonetheless, we recognised that it was high praise when he commended you to another judge. His guidance extended to writing recommendations for researchers' further studies, demonstrating his commitment to their professional growth.
Justice Majanja was meticulous about maintaining transparency and integrity, often ensuring his chambers' door remained open during visits. He was an intellectual force who engaged in conversations on various subjects, reflecting his voracious reading. Despite his stern demeanour, he was introspective and empathetic, as seen when he once questioned whether he was fair after a litigant broke down in court.
Justice Majanja, fondly referred to as DSM or Maj by his researchers, left an indelible mark on Kenya's judiciary. His contributions to the interpretation of the Constitution of Kenya, court management and the expeditious delivery of justice are unparalleled. It was indeed a unique privilege to learn from such an esteemed jurist. May he rest in eternal peace.
The writers are advocates of the High Court of Kenya and part of the inaugural cohort of legal researchers in the Judiciary of Kenya High Court for the period 2012-2014