Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
i
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
THE JUDICIARY
CUSTOMER, EMPLOYEE
SATISFACTION AND WORK
ENVIRONMENT SURVEY REPORT
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
ii
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
i
CUSTOMER, EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND WORK
ENVIRONMENT SURVEY REPORT
Report by
Performance Management Directorate
June 2016
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
ii
FOREWORD
The Constitution of Kenya requires all public institutions to be accountable in the delivery of services to the people of Kenya. In the last three years, the Judiciary has undertaken reforms aimed at enhancing accountability to the public. Performance-based management is one of the initiatives that was introduced to enhance accountability. It is a process that involves engagement with key stakeholders, monitoring and evaluating performance, and development of relevant policies in line with these interactions. In the Judiciary, performance-based management is being implemented through a framework developed by the Performance Management and Measurement Steering Committee. This Committee was tasked to oversee the institutionalization of performance-based management in the Judiciary with the Directorate of Performance Management as its Secretariat.
One of the performance measures adopted is annual Customer and Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey. Customer satisfaction survey gauges the level of satisfaction of Judiciary customers with the services offered. Employee satisfaction and work environment surveys on the other hand measures the extent to which employees are content with their jobs and the physical conditions, work processes and its effects on performance. These are critical performance management and measurement tools that are carried out periodically to establish levels of satisfaction and to identify areas for improvement.
This report is the first of its kind to be undertaken in line with performance-based management principles. The report presents baseline indicators that are crucial for the implementation and evaluation of performance indicators as signed in various Performance Management and Measurement Understandings. It answers the questions; where are we and how are we doing in meeting our customers’ and employees’ needs in the administration of justice.
I therefore call upon all judges, judicial officers and staff to continually be committed in the pursuit of an effective performance-based management system, and to play their part in the implementation of this report at respective courts. My office will endeavor to ensure that the recommendations of this report are addressed. This will ensure inclusive management of our courts towards achieving judicial excellence.
Hon. Dr. Willy Mutunga, D. Jur, SC, EGH Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The customer, employee satisfaction and work environment survey report is a product of concerted and collaborative efforts of individuals and many players. I wish to acknowledge the survey consultant, Sigmund Peak International Limited for professionally undertaking nationwide data collection. Their expertise in survey methodology development, data collection at courts, registries and directorates was crucial for the success of this survey.
I am equally indebted to Dr. Nyoike Wamwea, Director Performance Management, for his leadership and guidance during the survey, Heads of Stations, Registrars of Courts and Directors who supported collection of data. The input of Judiciary’s customers, judges, judicial officers and staff that provided raw data and information has been very valuable.
Gratitude also goes to the technical team comprising of Dr. Paul Kimalu, Joseph Osewe, Dominic Nyambane, George Obai, Fredrick Ombwori, Gilbert Kipkirui, Moses Maranga, Stephen Mbithuka, Hilary Patroba, Victor Lumumba, Everlyne Simiyu, Leonard Audi, Ezan Mwiluki, Yvonne Kinya, Linda Lukhale, and Martin Astiba for combining their knowledge and experience towards ensuring quality in data collection, analysis and report writing.
Finally, the support accorded to the Judiciary by the World Bank, though Judicial Performance Improvement Project (JPIP) to undertake this survey is appreciated.
Hon. Anne A. AmadiChief Registrar of the Judiciary
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x
CHAPTER ONE: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 1
1.0 Background 1
1.1 Objectives 1
1.2 Scope 2
1.3 Methodology 2
1.3.1 Study Design 2
1.3.2 Sample Size Determination and Sampling Procedure 2
1.3.3 Data Collection and Quality Control 3
1.3.4 Data Processing and Analysis 4
1.4 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 4
CHAPTER TWO: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 5
2.0 Introduction 5
2.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondent’s for Customer Satisfaction Survey 5
2.2 Customer Satisfaction Index 7
2.3 Awareness of Mandate And Core Values 8
2.4 Customer Care Desks 10
2.5 Registry Services 11
2.6 Service Delivery Charters 13
2.7 Alternative Forms Of Dispute Resolution 13
2.8 Pro-Bono Services and Cash Bail/Bond Refunds and Court User Committees (CUCS) 14
2.9 Ombudsman and Complaints Handling Mechanism 15
2.10 Customer Perception on Institutional Image 17
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
v
2.11 Perception on Judges and Judicial Officers 18
2.12 Perception on Judicial Staff 19
2.13 Location, Equipment and Facilities 20
2.14 Customer Communication 20
CHAPTER THREE: EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 23
3.0 Introduction 23
3.1 Socio - Demographic Characteristics for Employee Satisfaction Survey 24
3.2 Organization and Institutional Culture 26
3.3 Employee Competency 27
3.4 Training and Development 29
3.5 Communication 30
3.6 Motivation 31
3.7 Remuneration and benefits 33
CHAPTER FOUR: WORK ENVIRONMENT 36
4.0 Introduction 36
4.1 Disability, HIV/AIDS and Gender Equality 37
4.1.1 Disability 37
4.1.2 HIV/AIDS 39
4.1.3 Gender Mainstreaming 40
4.2 Health and Safety 40
4.3 Premises Cleanliness 44
4.4 Office Space and Equipment 45
4.5 General Work Environment 47
4.6 Conduciveness and Care For Environment 49
CHAPTER FIVE: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 50
5.0 Recommendations Implementation Matrix 50
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION 52
APPENDICES 53
Appendix 1: Customers’ Satisfaction Indices by Court 53
Appendix2: Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Indices by Court/Directorate/Offices 61
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Sample Size determination for Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey ................................................................ 3
Table 2 Index Ratings ....................................................................................... 4
Table 3 Customer Satisfaction Index by Court level ..................................... 7
Table 4 Customer Satisfaction Index by Factor ............................................. 8
Table 5 Customer Satisfaction on Judiciary Mandate and Core Values ..... 9
Table 6 Customer Communication ..............................................................21
Table 7 Perception of Paying Additional Money for Services and Case Processing .. .............................................................................................. 22
Table 8 Employee Satisfaction by Court Type .............................................23
Table 9 Work Environment ...........................................................................36
Table 10 Recomendations Implementation Matrix ....................................50
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Demographic Characteristics of Customers ............................................. 6
Figure 2 Percentage of Respondents by Attributes ................................................ 9
Figure 3 Satisfaction with Customer Care Desks ...................................................10
Figure 4 Satisfaction with Registry Services ...........................................................12
Figure 5 Satisfaction with Service Delivery Charters .............................................13
Figure 6 Satisfaction with Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms .............14
Figure 7 Satisfaction with Pro-Bono Services and Cash Bail/Bond Refunds /Ombudsman/CUC.....................................................................................15
Figure 8: Ombudsman and complaints handling mechanism ............................16
Figure 9 Percentage of Respondents Reporting Satisfaction with Institutional Image ..........................................................................................................17
Figure 10 Perception of Judges and Magistrates ..................................................18
Figure 11 Perception of Judicial Staff .....................................................................19
Figure 12 Access to Court ........................................................................................20
Figure 13 Retrieval of Court Files ............................................................................21
Figure 14 Employee Satisfaction by Factors Affecting Satisfaction Level..................24
Figure 15 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Employees .............................25
Figure 16 Satisfaction with Organizational and Institutional Culture ..................27
Figure 17 Employee Competency Levels ...............................................................28
Figure 18 Perception on Training and Development ............................................29
Figure 19 Percentage of Respondents Reporting Satisfaction with Internal Communication Structure .......................................................................31
Figure 20 Level of Staff Motivation ..........................................................................32
Figure 21 Percentage of Employee Reporting Satisfaction with Remuneration an Benefits ............................................................................................................33
Figure 22 Staff selection, recruitment and promotion ..........................................34
Figure 23 Staff Discipline .........................................................................................35
Figure 24 Satisfaction indices for Disability, HIV/AIDS and Gender Equality .....38
Figure 25 Level of satisfaction with HIV/AIDS policies and practices .................39
Figure 26 Level of Satisfaction with Gender Mainstreaming ...............................40
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
viii
Figure 27 Percentage of Satisfaction with Health and Safety Policies .................41
Figure 28 Satisfaction with Health Measures .........................................................42
Figure 29 Satisfaction with Safety Measures ..........................................................43
Figure 30 Satisfaction with Premises Cleanliness ..................................................44
Figure 31 Satisfaction with Office and Equipment ................................................46
Figure 32 Satisfaction with General Work Environment .......................................48
Figure 33 Satisfaction with Conduciveness and Care for Environment ..............49
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CEWE Customer, Employee and Work Environment
CUCs Court User Committees
CS Chief Justice
CRJ Chief Registrar of the Judiciary
DPAC Department of Public Affairs and Communication
ELRC Employment and Labour Relations Court
ELC Environment and Land Court
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HOS Heads of Station
HRMA Human Resource Management & Administration
ICT Information Communication Technology
JTF Judiciary Transformation Framework
JPIP Judicial Perfomance Improvement Project
PMD Perfomance Management Directorate
PMMSC Performance Management & Measurement Steering
Committee
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The customer, employee satisfaction and work environment survey was carried out to assess the level of satisfaction of Judiciary customers with the services offered to them and assess level of content of employees with their jobs and work environment and its effects on employee performance. The study covered 178 Court stations including Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, High Courts, Employment and Labour Relations Courts, Environment and Land Courts, Magistrates’ Courts and Kadhis’ Courts. The survey was conducted in May 2015. It employed quantitative and qualitative survey design using structured questionnaires administered to sampled respondents.
The results indicate that the overall customer satisfaction index was 66.8 while the overall employee and work environment satisfaction index was 66.5. The report gives an indication of court users and other Judiciary customers are generally satisfied with the services offered, and employees on the other hand are content with their jobs and the work environment. However, the report highlights several findings and makes recommendation for improvement in the implementation matrix contained in Chapter 5 of this report.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background
The Judiciary is one of the three arms of government established under Chapter 10, Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya. It is mandated to deliver justice expeditiously to all regardless of status. This implies that it has an obligation to remove barriers to justice by ensuring that the Judiciary is open, transparent and accessible to all. In line with this mandate, the Judiciary established performance measurement and accountability standards for judges, judicial officers and staff across courts, registries and directorates. Customer and employee satisfaction, and work environment index is one of the measures adopted under this framework.
Customer satisfaction gauges the level of satisfaction with the services offered by the Judiciary. This is based on the recognition that it is not only the determination of cases that give customers positive or negative impression of the court, but also how they are treated right from when they enter court premises up to when they leave. Employee satisfaction measures the commitment and motivation levels of employees derived from working for the organization. A high employee satisfaction index means that employees are motivated in the organisation and this enhances job performance and their productivity. Work environment measures the status of the physical work environment and its effect on employee performance. It facilitates identifying factors that affect working conditions and designing appropriate measures to address them. It is against this backdrop that the Judiciary engaged Sigmund Peak International to undertake customer and employee satisfaction and work environment survey.
1.1 Objectives
The objectives of the survey were to: (i) Determine the level of customer satisfaction with service delivery
standards,
(ii) Determine the level of judges, judicial officers and staff satisfaction
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
2
with terms of service,
(iii) Determine the level of employee perception on work environment conditions, and
(iv) Make recommendation based on survey findings.
1.2 Scope
The scope of the survey was both at courts and administrative units. In particular, the survey covered one hundred and seventy eight (178) court stations, including the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, High Courts, Employment and Labour Relations Courts, Environment and Land Courts, Magistrates’ Courts and Kadhis’ Courts.
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1 Study Design
This study employed a survey design with both quantitative and qualitative techniques. It involved sampling a section of the entire population for inclusion in the survey. A structured questionnaire with both closed-ended and open-ended questions was administered to the sampled respondents. Closed ended questions gathered quantitative information about the segments of the population whereas the open-ended questions gathered qualitative data to further explain certain elements of the same group.
1.3.2 Sample Size Determination and Sampling Procedure
The population for customer satisfaction survey consisted of litigants, their families and friends, plaintiffs, victims, witnesses, case experts, advocates, law enforcement officers, media, development partners, suppliers and employees. The sample of respondents involved those who interact with or understand the services of the Judiciary. On the other hand, the population for the employee satisfaction and work environment survey comprised judges, judicial officers and staff.
Stratified proportionate, simple random sampling with replacement and purposive sampling techniques were used to sample respondents for the customer satisfaction survey. In particular, stratified proportionate sampling was used to cover the whole country based on court station as the first strata and proportionately determine the number of customers based on the number of court cases initiated in 2014. Simple random
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
3
sampling with replacement was used to target individual respondents at court level. Purposive sampling was used to target institutions with frequent engagements with the Judiciary based on identified thematic areas.
Table 1 presents the sample size determination for customers and employees for the survey. The sample size was determined using Fishers’ model and the margin of error was 1.7% at 95% confidence level resulting in 3,323 respondents for the customer satisfaction survey. To mitigate against errors in stratification, 10% more respondents were added resulting in a total of 4,170 respondents. Further, the Fishers’ model was used to determine representative sample of employees resulting in a sample size of 1,923 employees for the employee satisfaction and work environment survey. However actual sample was 1,895.
Table 1: Sample size determination for customer, employee satisfaction and work environment survey
Error Margin (P-values) Customers’ sample size (Population >10,000)
Employees’ sample size (Population = 4,562)
5.0% 384 354
4.5% 474 430
4.0% 600 531
3.5% 784 669
3.0% 1,067 865
2.5% 1,537 1,150
2.0% 2,401 1,573
1.7% 3,323 1,923
1.5% 4,268 2,205
1.0% 9,604 3,093
1.3.3 Data Collection and Quality Control
Secondary data was obtained through a review of existing reference materials relevant to the study. Primary data for the customer and employee satisfaction and work environment survey was collected through questionnaires. Employee satisfaction and work environment survey questionnaires were sent to all staff via e-mail two days before the data collection. Customer satisfaction survey questionnaires were administered by research assistants who were deployed to courts. Prior
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
4
to actual data collection, all the tools were pretested in Nairobi. This was meant to test the research instruments and protocols and check the ability of the enumerators to use the tools accurately. To ensure data quality, the consultants were involved in data supervision and quality checks that involved spot checks, accompanied interviews, retraining and questionnaire editing both in the field and during data entry process.
1.3.4 Data Processing and Analysis
Data processing entailed data entry, collation, data cleaning, coding, analysis and interpretation. Analysis was done using MS Excel, SPSS and STATA. The responses were analysed and reported using descriptive and inferential statistics. Satisfaction indices were computed to determine the satisfaction levels. This is a weighted figure of the scores on a 4-point Likhert scale on a continum ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. The weighted percentage average scores were used to obtain this figure. Fifty percent (50%) was used as the score below which respondents were deemed to be dissatisfied as presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Index ratings
Level of Satisfaction/Agreement Score Index (% score)
Very Satisfied/Strongly Agree 4 75-100
Satisfied/Agree 3 51 – 74
Dissatisfied/Disagree 2 26-50
Very Dissatisfied/ Strongly Disagree 1 Less or equal to 25
1.4 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The Customer and Employee Satisfaction, and Work Environment Survey Report is presented along two broad thematic areas. First is access to justice by customers encompassing awareness of mandate, core values, court services, customer perception, institutional image, and stakeholder perception. Second is employee satisfaction and work environment consisting of organization and corporate culture, employee competency, training and development, communication, workload, motivation, working conditions, health and safety.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
5
CHAPTER TWO
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
2.0 Introduction
This Chapter presents findings on the customer satisfaction survey based on the factors affecting the level of customer satisfaction. The findings are based on perception of customers on access to and delivery of justice in the Judiciary. The level of customer satisfaction is measured through customer satisfaction index which is a composite score of individual service delivery attributes. The indices relate to the level at which the customers perceive the Judiciary’s provision of services. The gap between the services delivered and customers’ expectations determines the level of satisfaction. The closer the gap between the expectations and the actual service delivered, the higher the satisfaction. Exceeding their expectations implies that customers are delighted resulting in higher satisfaction indices.
2.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondent’s for Customer Satisfaction Survey
The respondents for the customer satisfaction survey had a myriad of demographic characteristics. Figure 1 shows that most of the respondents for the customer satisfaction survey were those who came to seek services in the Magistrates’ Courts. The results also indicate that 42.5% of the respondents had tertiary level of education and above and 34.6% were self-employed. With regard to nature of case for which the respondents were coming to court, 44.5% were attending court in relation to civil cases whereas 41.0% were attending in relation to criminal cases. On average, 37.8% of the respondents covered at most 10 kilometres to court and taking less than 1 hour to the court station.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
6
Court type
81.9%
2.2%1.2%9.6%
3.4% 1.3% 0.4%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Supr
eme C
ount
Count
of A
ppea
lH
igh
Court
Mag
istra
te C
ourt
Kadhi
’s C
ourt
ELC
ELRC
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
37.8%
23.8%
10.1%6.8%
22.8%
10km
and
bel
ow
11-2
0km
21-3
0km
31-4
0km
Abo
ve 4
1km
Distance to court
3.9%
16.8%
35.3%
42.5%
1.5%
None Primary Secondary Tertiary and No responseabove
Education
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Case type
50.0%41.0%
44.5%
11.6%
2.9%
30.0%
20.0%
40.0%
10.0%
0.0%Criminal Civil Traffic No
response
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
8.0%
17.3%
34.6%
15.6%20.5%
2.9% 1.1%
Stud
ent
Unem
pley
edSelf
empl
eyed
Gover
nmen
t em
ploy
ee
Private
sccto
r em
ploy
eeReti
ree
No res
pons
e
Occupation
60.0%41.5%
30.5%19.5%
3.5% 4.5% 0.5%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Less
than
1 h
our
1-2
hour
s3-
4 ho
urs
5-6
hour
s7
hour
s an
d...
No
resp
onse
Time taken to court
Figure 1: Demographic characteristics of customers
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
7
2.2 Customer Satisfaction Index
The index was computed from the mean of weighted satisfaction levels of factors affecting customer satisfaction at courts excluding administrative units within the Judiciary. Table 3 presents the Customer Satisfaction Indices for the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, High Court, Employment and Labour Relations Court, Environment and Land Court, Magistrates’ Courts and Kadhis’ Courts. The findings indicate that, across court level, the overall Customer Satisfaction Index for the Judiciary was 66.8.
Table 3: Customer satisfaction index by Court level
Court Level Customer Satisfaction Index
Supreme Court 70.8
Court of Appeal 70.7
High Court 67.6
Employment and Labour Relations Court
63.2
Land and Environment Court 66.1
Magistrates’ Courts 66.3
Kadhis’ Courts 72.2
All 66.8
The Judiciary is mandated to provide expeditious delivery of justice irrespective of status. This is achieved through cross cutting service delivery areas or initiatives such as registries, customer care desks and service delivery charters. Table 4 and appendix 1 presents interrelated factors identified as key determinant of overall Customer Satisfaction Index. The results show that customers’ perception of the judges and judicial officers was at 74.4%, perception of the customer care desk and registry at 72.4%, customer perception of other judiciary staff was 71.6%, institutional image of the Judiciary was 68.9%, satisfaction with the mission, vision, mandate and core values was 68.3% and satisfaction with complaints handling process at 59.9%.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
8
Table 4: Customer satisfaction index by factor
Type of court
Factor
Sup
rem
e C
ou
rt
Co
urt
of
Ap
pea
l
Hig
h C
ou
rt
Em
plo
ymen
t an
d
Lab
ou
r R
elat
ion
s C
ou
rt
Lan
d a
nd
E
nvi
ron
men
t C
ou
rtM
agis
trat
es
Co
urt
s
Kad
his
’ Co
urt
s
Ch
ildre
n’s
Co
urt
An
ti-c
orr
up
tio
n
Co
urt
Mission, Vision, Mandate and Core Values
72.3 71.8 69.1 60.7 67.3 67.9 71.8 71.1 67.0
Customer Care Desk and Registry
78.5 71.9 72.3 63.7 70.6 72.4 75.5 67.5 72.1
Location, Equipment and Facilities
71.5 70.2 66.8 68.1 67.4 64.1 70.2 70.9 69.6
Customer Communication 64.1 67.6 62.4 56.6 61.9 61.8 69.8 63.9 62.0Service Quality 63.4 64.6 62.4 59.5 62.9 60.2 68.2 62.8 59.9Customers’ Perception of Judges and Magistrates
76.1 78.2 75.0 66.3 69.2 74.1 79.4 70.8 80.8
Customers’ Perception of other Judiciary Staff
75.1 77.2 72.1 68.3 67.5 71.2 77.5 67.1 72.0
Corporate Image 72.8 76.0 70.8 61.5 68.2 68.3 74.9 71.9 63.5Complaint Handling 65.4 65.9 59.7 59.9 54.0 60.1 57.7 58.3 55.0Customer Satisfaction Index 70.8 70.7 67.6 63.2 66.1 66.3 72.2 67.4 67.7
2.3 Awareness on Mandate and Core Values
According to Chapter 10 of the Constitution, the mandate of the Judiciary is to administer justice and promote the rule of law. This mandate is discharged by providing independent, accessible, fair and responsive fora for dispute resolution and development of jurisprudence. The survey sought to determine customer awareness and satisfaction with the Judiciary’s mandate, core values and services. It is evident from Table 5 that customers were least satisfied with the Judiciary’s public accountability for its role and performance at 67.2%, Judiciary’s communication of its vision and mission was at 67.4%. The respondents were most satisfied with the Judiciary handling of customers’ issues with impartiality 68.1% of which 63.3% strongly agreed as shown in Figure 2.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
9
Table 5: Customer satisfaction on Judiciary mandate and core values
Attributes Satisfaction Index (%)
The Judiciary has clearly communicated its vision and mission 67.4
The Judiciary provides equal access to justice 69.3
The Judiciary handles customers’ issues with impartiality 68.1
My case has been handled fairly by judge/magistrate 70.3
The Judiciary case processes are clear and easy to understand 67.7
The Judiciary publicly accounts for its role and performance 67.2
The finding is a pointer to the level of customers’ awareness of their rights to expeditious and equal access to justice regardless of status as outlined in Article 159 of the Constitution.
Figure 2: Percentage of respondents by attributes
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
10
Figure 2: cont’d.
The report recommends continued awareness campaigns on Judiciary mandate, core values and services through service weeks, talk shows and outreach programmes and other interventions.
2.4 Customer Care DesksCustomer care desks provide a platform for the Judiciary customers to make general inquiries and seek information on various services. The survey sought to determine the customers’ satisfaction with the services offered at customer care desks in the Judiciary. Figure 3 shows that 82.3% of the respondents were satisfied that the customer care desks staff were courteous, 82.9% indicated that customer care desks were easy to find, 77.3% indicated the customer care staff were available, 68% indicated that they were able to find the information they need and 62% were satisfied that Judiciary provides guidance on services offered. However it should be noted that 48% were not satisfied with guidance offered at customer care desks and this needs to be improved.
Figure 3: Satisfaction with customer care desks
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
11
Figure 3: cont’d.
The report recommends the following:
(i) Strengthen customer care desks by providing adequate training to judicial staff in charge,
(ii) Provide adequate Information Communication and Education materials to customer care desks.
2.5 Registry Services
Court registries are vital in keeping records and files on court cases. Customers visit court registries to file cases, update case records and make enquiries on matters regarding particular cases. Figure 4 presents customer satisfaction with registry services. The findings indicate that 75% of the respondents were satisfied that the staff were courteous, 71% were satisfied they act with integrity, 75% were satisfied with the guidance they get from the registry staff and 75% were satisfied that their issues were handled with confidentiality. However, 57% still believed that the file retrieval does not take place within 5 minutes as stipulated in the service charters. Further, 54% were not satisfied that judgments are availed in time and 53% also were not satisfied that cause lists were availed 7 days in advance.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
12
Figure 4: Satisfaction with registry services
The report recommends the following: (i) Judiciary to develop and fully implement registry manuals to
improve efficiency at court registries, (ii) Enforce compliance to timely retrieval of files.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
13
2.6 Service Delivery Charters
Service delivery charters provide a list of services offered by the Judiciary, obligations of the clients and service delivery standards they should expect. In particular, a service delivery charter typically shares a number of key characteristics, including clear and simple language; realistic and measurable performance standards; a dedicated grievance redress mechanism; and an effective public relations strategy to increase customers’ awareness about Judiciary services. The survey therefore sought to establish the level of customer satisfaction with courts’ service delivery charters. Figure 5 shows that 63.0% of the survey respondents agreed that they understood the contents of Judiciary service charters. However, it should be noted that 56.0% of the respondents indicated that the charters were not visible. This implies that legibility of the service delivery charters is an issue or in some instances they were not displayed at all.
Figure 5: Satisfaction with service delivery charters
The report recommends the following:
(i) Ensure that service charters are legible and displayed in all court stations,
(ii) Ensure compliance with service delivery standards contained in the charters.
2.7 Alternative forms of Dispute Resolution
The survey sought to establish customer satisfaction with alternative forms of dispute resolution. Figure 6 shows that 64.9% of respondents are satisfied with reconciliation services and 60.5% were satisfied with arbitration services. This finding suggests that although the Judiciary has initiated a number of measures to promote alternative dispute resolution,
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
14
a large proportion of the customers still express dissatisfaction. It is also important to note that 86.8% are dissatisfied with the notarizing services.
Figure 6: Satisfaction with alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
The report recommends the following:
(i) Strengthening of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms,
(ii) Sensitize litigants on notarizing services.
2.8 Pro-bono Services and Cash Bail/Bond Refunds and Court User Committees
Figure 7 presents satisfaction levels of pro-bono services and bail/bond refund. It shows that 92.8% were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with pro-bono services, 85.5% were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with payment and refund of cash bail/bond. This implies that in order to enhance service delivery at courts, specific policies ought to be developed
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
15
and implemented to strengthen provision of pro-bono services. The survey revealed that only 62% of the customers were not aware while 67% do not understand the importance of CUCs.
Figure 7: Satisfaction with pro-bono services and cash bail/bond refunds/Ombudsman/CUCs
2.9 Ombudsman and Complaints Handling Mechanism
The results in Figure 8 presents the customers’ perception on judiciary ombudsman office and complaints handling mechanisms. The results indicate that 69% of the respondents were neither aware of existence of ombudsman’s office nor facilities for reporting complaints respectively. In addition 80% of the respondents had never lodged a complaint with the Judiciary.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
16
The results further indicate that 61% of the respondents agreed that the Judiciary has an effective complaints handling mechanism. However, 57%, 60% and 64% disagreed that complaints by telephone, email and letters are timely acknowledged and responded to respectively.
Figure 8: Ombudsman and complaints handling mechanism
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
17
The report recommends the following:
(i) Strengthening provision of pro-bono services,
(ii) Streamling internal processes and improving efficiency in payment and refund of cash bail/bond,
(iii) Regularly review of court fees to make them affordable to customers,
(iv) Sensitizing the public on the role of Ombudsman and court user committees.
2.10 Customer Perception on Institutional Image
The Constitution of Kenya 2010 ushered in reform initiatives aimed at enhancing access to and expeditious delivery of justice. In this regard, the Judiciary initiated a number of key flagship projects and programmes aimed at achieving judicial excellence, and restoring public confidence. The survey therefore sought to establish customers’ satisfaction with the Judiciary’s image in light of on-going reform initiatives.
Figure 9 indicates that 71.3% of the respondents agreed that their experience gave them confidence and trust in the Judiciary. About 67% indicated that the Judiciary demonstrates a positive image to the general public based on its performance. This finding implies that the reform initiatives were improving public image of the Judiciary. This implies the Judiciary was sensitive and responsive to the needs and aspirations of Kenyans. Thus, the reform initiatives should be mainstreamed across all courts thereby sustaining an institution that is friendly and fair to people, both in its outlook, processes and decisions.
Figure 9: Percentage of respondents reporting satisfaction with institutional image
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
18
The report recommends the following:
(i) The Judiciary enhances its public engagement and media outreach to boost public confidence,
(ii) Mainstream reforms initiatives across all courts to sustain positive institutional image.
2.11 Perception on Judges and Judicial Officers
Customer perception of judges and judicial officers is an important aspect in understanding the implementation of Judiciary’s core mandate and values. It shows the decorum of judges, and judicial officers during hearing and determination of cases. The survey sought to determine customers’ perception on judges and judicial officers. Figure 10 shows that 84.5% of the respondents were of the view that judges and judicial officers were courteous, 86.1% were satisfied that judges and judicial officers listened and led court hearings well, 84% indicated that they demonstrated a high level of integrity in their duties and 74.2% felt that court decisions were made in a timely manner. However 25.7% of the respondents were not satisfied with timeliness of the court processes.
Figure 10: Perception of judges and magistrates
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
19
The report recommends ensuring compliance with performance timelines on hearing and determination of cases.
2.12 Perception on Judicial Staff
Figure 11 presents customers’ perception on judicial staff. It shows that 78.0% of the respondents agreed that judicial staff were friendly and respectful, 76.9% indicated that they were helpful and cooperative, 76.3% indicated that they were professional at work while 76.8% indicated that judicial staff were well trained and properly oriented in their jobs.
Figure 11: Perception of judicial staff
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
20
The report recommends promotion of an incentive scheme for judges, judicial officers and staff.
2.13 Location, Equipment and Facilities
The physical condition and location, tools and equipment being used to provide the service determine customer perception of service quality hence customer satisfaction level. Figure 12 shows 80% of the respondents either strongly agreed (23%) or agreed (57%) that it was easy to find and identify the court location while 16% were of the contrary opinion.
Strongly agree23%
Strongly disagree5% Disagree
11%
The court was easy to find and identifiable
Agree57%
Don’tknow
4%
Figure 12: Access to court
The findings indicate that the signage or other means used by the Judiciary are actually effective in helping customers locate courts.
2.14 Customer Communication
Good communication channels and the ease with which communication flows in an organization are paramount for effective service delivery. Customers normally appreciate fast communication channels, which embrace feedback and accessibility of information. The customers were most satisfied with the ease of finding court dates at 71.1% satisfaction level, followed by the adequacy of notice leading to attendance of courts at 70.8% and the availability of court files at 61.4%. The findings also revealed that 45% of the respondents agreed that the court files were available when needed.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
21
Table 6: Customer communication
SN Attributes Satisfaction Level (%)
1 It was easy for me to find out my court dates 71.1
2 There was adequate notice leading to attendance of court 70.8
3 It is easy to communicate with the Judiciary by phone 56.1
4 The Judiciary responds with written letters within 2 working days
56.0
5 Cause lists are available seven days in advance 58.1
6 Customer Communication 62.3
However, a good number of respondents indicated that the files were not available when needed as shown in Figure 13.
Don’t know17%
Strongly agree9%
Strongly disagree15%
Court files are always available
Agree38%
Disagree23%
Figure 13: Retrieval of court files
The report recommends enhancement of file retrieval process from the Registries by emplementing the recommendations in the registry manuals.
2.15 Corruption
Below is a summary of the perception of the customers paying additional money for services and case processing in the different court levels.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
22
Table 7. Perception of paying additional money for services and case processing
Court Type Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
agreeSupreme court 40.9% 22.7% 31.8% 4.5%Court of Appeal 33.9% 27.1% 28.8% 10.2%High Court 35.5% 32.7% 23.8% 8.0%Magistrate Court 34.7% 30.3% 23.0% 12.0%Kadhi’s Court 37.6% 29.7% 22.8% 9.9%Children Court 29.2% 54.2% 4.2% 12.5%Anti-corruption court 42.4% 33.3% 12.1% 12.1%
Environment and Land Court 31.4% 34.3% 28.6% 5.7%
Labour and Employment Court 30.0% 10.0% 60.0%
All 35.0% 30.6% 23.2% 11.3%
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
23
CHAPTER THREE
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
3.0 Introduction
Employee satisfaction is the extent to which employees are content with their jobs and work environment. It captures individual aspects or facets of their jobs, such as nature of work or supervision. These surveys usually address areas such as compensation, workload, and perceptions of management, flexibility, teamwork and resources among others. This particular survey focused on job engagement, employee development, recognition and rewards, scheme of service, internal relations, provision of working tools and employee welfare and the extent to which judges, judicial officers and staff members are engaged towards the aspirations of the Judiciary. There is a high correlation between employee satisfaction and individual productivity.
The overall employee satisfaction index was 66.5% as presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Employee satisfaction by Court Type
Court Type
Factors
Sup
rem
e co
urt
Co
urt
of
Ap
pea
l
Hig
h C
ou
rt
Em
plo
ymen
t an
d
Lab
ou
r R
elat
ion
s C
ou
rt
En
viro
nm
ent
and
Lan
d
Co
urt
Mag
istr
ates
’ Co
urt
s
Kad
hi’s
Co
urt
s
Ch
ildre
n C
ou
rt
General Opinion of the Judiciary 78.2 82.7 80.7 74.2 83.3 81.4 83.3 79.7Selection, Recruitment and Promotion Practices 60.1 59.0 63.5 47.2 62.5 63.9 65.6 58.0Internal Communication at the Judiciary 60.9 62.1 68.6 59.2 67.3 69.9 74.7 66.8Corporate Culture, Team work and organization 63.1 66.4 67.7 62.6 68.8 69.9 72.0 69.4Staff Training and Development 51.2 50.2 57.1 45.2 56.5 59.4 67.2 46.1Motivation, Morale and Recognition 57.0 58.2 61.2 51.3 60.8 63.2 69.5 59.4My Immediate Supervisor 69.8 66.5 69.3 72.8 68.2 71 71.2 64.5Performance Management 48.6 52.3 55.0 42.4 51.2 58.6 62.4 56.5Remuneration and Benefits 64.1 59.3 63.0 51.4 61.1 62.8 68.2 65.1Employee Relations 61.9 62.6 64.2 63.0 62.0 65.0 68.6 64.1Management and Leadership 59.4 59.9 62.2 53.7 62.6 64.9 70.4 58.2Employment Engagement 71.7 71.0 73.8 66.9 80.8 75.3 81.8 81.9Work/Life Balance 61.8 60.6 62.4 52.1 68.8 63.5 69.2 68.8Overall Employee Satisfaction Index 62.3 62.4 65.6 57.5 66.5 67.3 71.8 65.5
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
24
Figure 14 represents the factors affecting employee satisfaction. The figure indicates that, satisfaction with the general opinion of the Judiciary was 81.2%, employee satisfaction was 74.8%, satisfaction with the immediate supervisor was 70.5%, work/life balance was 63.1% and motivation, morale and recognition was 62.4%. The findings imply that the overall levels of satisfaction of employees and their work environment was satisfactory, although appropriate measures should be taken to address staff concerns on training and development and encourage work-life balance among judges, judicial officers and staff.
Figure 14: Employee satisfaction by factors affecting satisfaction level
3.1 Socio - Demographic Characteristics for Employee Satisfaction Survey
The respondents for the employee satisfaction and work environment survey consisted of judges, judicial officers and staff. Figure 15 presents socio-demographic characteristics where a majority were judicial staff constituting 88.4% of the respondents. The results also show that 67.6% of the respondents were drawn mainly from the Magistrates Courts while 21.7% were from the High Court. With regard to level of education, the results show that 44.0% of respondents had attained secondary education,
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
25
another 21.6% had first degree and while 18.4% had advanced diploma. The results indicate that 47.3% of the respondents were male and 66.7% were aged between 25-44 years. Finally, 43.5% of the respondents had over 10 years of service in the Judiciary.
Court Type Cadre
Level of Education Years of Service
80.0%67.6%
21.8%
4.2% 2.5% 1.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% 0.6%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
80.0%
88.4%90.0%
100.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%40.0%
30.0%20.0%10.0%
0.0%
50.0%45.0%40.0%35.0%30.0%25.0%20.0%15.0%10.0%5.0% 3.1%
18.4%
24.6%
11.1%15.9%
24.5%
43.5%
5.0%5.6% 7.3%
44.0%
0.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0% 0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0% 47.3%33.4% 33.3%
18.7%
7.4%5.4%
1.8%
18-24years
25-34years
35-44years
45-54years
55 years and over
NoResponse
38.3%
14.4%
50.0%45.0%40.0%35.0%30.0%25.0%20.0%15.0%10.0%5.0%0.0%
0.8%6.0%
0.7% 4.0%
Suprem
e court
Hig
h Court
Magis
trate
Court
Kadhi Court
Childre
n Court
ELC
ELRC
No R
esponse
Court o
f Appeal
Primary Secondary Advanceddiploma
1st degree Master’sdegree
and adove
NoResponse No
ResponseOver 10
YearsBetween 5-
10 yearsBetween 5-
5 yearsLess than 3
years
Kadhis Judicialstaff Response
NoJudicialofficers
Judges
Male Female No response
GenderAge of Employees
Figure 15: Socio-demographic characteristics of employees
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
26
3.2 Organization and Institutional Culture
The Judiciary Transformation Framework (JTF) emphasizes, that the primary responsibility for the successful and sustainable transformation of the Judiciary rests with its leadership, management and staff at all levels and in all capacities. It emphasizes that a clear and robust organizational design; a dynamic leadership and management team; and a competent and motivated staff are conditions necessary for a successfully transformed Judiciary. Sustaining the judicial transformative agenda therefore, is underpinned on a sound organization and institutional culture.
Figure 16 shows the respondents satisfaction with the Judiciary’s institutional culture. This study investigated the extent to which corporate culture and team-work were appreciated by the Judiciary’s staff and management. The survey revealed that over 73% of the respondents were satisfied that there was a distinctive Judiciary culture to identify with. Over 35% of the respondents were satisfied that there was regular feedback from the supervisors. Over 62% were satisfied that employees’ ideas and contributions are encouraged and appreciated. Over 63% were satisfied that there was promotion of innovation culture in the Judiciary. Over 78% were satisfied that there was teamwork in the Judiciary.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
27
Figure 16: Satisfaction with organizational and institutional culture
The report recommends adoption of regular performance feedback from supervisors.
3.3 Employee Competency
Employee competencies refer to the traits, skills or attribute that judges, judicial officers and staff need to perform their jobs most effectively. These vary depending on the job and the position but there are some commonalities that apply to any job in any organization. Figure 17 shows the respondents competency levels. Over 72% of the respondents were satisfied with their competency on computer skills. Over 78% of the respondents indicated their communication skills were sufficient while 77% indicated their customer care/public relations were sufficient. Over 74% indicated their report writing skills were either good or excellent. Further,
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
28
74% indicated their supervisory skills were sufficient while 69% believe their data interpretation and analysis skills were sufficient. However, there is still need to enhance training in computer and data interpretation since over 28% and 30% of the respondents respectively did not agree.
Figure 17: Employee competency levels
The report recommends continuous training of judicial staff on computer and data interpretation.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
29
3.4 Training and Development
Training and development refers to teaching, or developing in oneself or others, on any skills and knowledge that relate to specific useful competencies. Training has specific goals of improving one’s capability, capacity, productivity and performance of a particular job. This survey sought to determine employee perception on training and development activities at the Judiciary with a particular focus on policy, career growth, prioritization, equitable distribution of opportunities, and relevance. Figure 18 indicates that over 54% of the respondents were satisfied with the training policy in place. Only 49% of the respondents believed there was a clear career growth path while 51% were not satisfied. About 42% believed staff training was prioritised with 58% disagreeing. Only 30% believed there was consultation on training needs while 70% disagreed. Further, 34% believed there was an equitable training opportunity while 66% disagreed. It is notable that 62.5% of the respondents believed there was work relevant training.
Figure 18: Perception on training and development
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
30
The report recommends the following:
(i) Conducting a comprehensive training needs assessments for judges, judicial officers and staff,
(ii) Continuous training of judges, judicial officers and staff on priority skills and competencies,
(iii) Ensure equitable distribution of training opportunities.
3.5 Communication
Organizational communication is the consideration, analysis, and criticism of the role of communication in organizational context. Its main function is to inform, persuade and promote goodwill. Organizational communication plays an important role in knowledge dissemination and learning.
Figure 19 presents results of satisfaction with communication structure at the Judiciary. It indicates that 61.4% of the respondents were satisfied that there was good communication across courts, registries and directorates. About 90% were aware of their work expectations, 75.5% were satisfied that there was readily available information on their job, 63.6% believed that there was openness and transparency in communication, 69.2% believed that upward communication was encouraged while 55.7% believed that there was minimal gossip at work. However over 36% still believed there was no openness and transparency in communication while over 38% believed that communication across courts and directorates was not good.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
31
Figure 19: Percentage of respondents reporting satisfaction with internal communication structure
The report recommends development and implementation of Judiciary internal communication policy.
3.6 Motivation
Employee motivation is crucial in building a productive workforce, since most of the work of managers is done through others. This survey focused
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
32
on level of staff motivation across Courts, Registries and Directorates. Figure 20 displays the level of motivation. It shows that 67.4% of the respondents were satisfied that they were motivated to perform their duties and responsibilities. About 60.0% were satisfied. Further, 56.3% believed that innovation was encouraged. However 65.2% believed there was no clear staff award and recognition policy while 51.6% believed that there was no recognition of good work.
Motivated to perform duties and responsibilities
High staff morale
Innovation encouraged
Good work recognitionClearity in staff recognation and awardpolicy
60.050.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
.0
50.040.030.020.010.0
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.041.0%
24.2% 26.5%
8.3%
50.0
.0
15.010.05.0
20.020.9%
30.7%
36.9%
11.5%
25.030.035.040.0
.0
11.9%20.8% 16.0% 12.3%
27.0%
13.5%
47.2%
51.4%
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Agreeagree
Strongly
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Agreeagree
Strongly Stronglydisagree
Disagree Agreeagree
Strongly
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Agreeagree
Strongly
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Agreeagree
Strongly
44.6%
27.2%
16.2%11.9%
Figure 20: Level of staff motivation
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
33
The report recommends development and implementition of an incentive scheme.
3.7 Remuneration and Benefits
Employee remuneration refers to the compensation given to the employees for their work performance. It provides basic attraction to an employee to perform job efficiently and effectively. It is a method of promoting morale, increasing motivation and fostering team cohesion. This survey sought to establish level of satisfaction with remuneration and benefits at the Judiciary. Figure 21 show that 63.4% of the respondents were satisfied that the Judiciary remuneration compares fairly to responsibilities. Further, 71.6% were satisfied that the remuneration compares fairly with the other public institutions, 51.1% were satisfied that the commuter allowance was adequate; 53.5% indicated that the house allowance was adequate, while 50.6% were satisfied that the per diem was adequate. However 58.4% did not believe that the annual awards and increments were based on merit.
Adequate commuter allowance
Adequate per-diem allowanceAdequate house allowance
9.9%17.9%
31.0%
41.2%
10.5% 15.8%
30.7%
40.0%
17.9%
31.5%
10.6%
43.0%
Remuneration compares fairly to other publicinstititions
16.6% 9.5%
18.9%
55.0%
Strongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
Figure 21: Percentage of employee reporting satisfaction with remuneration and benefits
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
34
The report recommends development and implementation of a Judiciary annual employee’s incentive scheme.
3.8 Perception on recruitment, promotion and discipline
Organizations prosper when they have a perfect combination of employees. Recruitment is therefore important in ensuring this is achieved. Issues like diversity should be taken into account and proceses and systems regulary reviewed to ensure hidden bias is removed and talent is not blocked from entering the organization. The survey sought to find out whether recruitment, induction and promotion proceses are clear and transparent. Figure 22 shows the survey results.
11.423
50.1
15.5
0102030405060
strongly disagree
disagree agree strongly agree
Recruitment and selection process by the Judicial service commission are fair and in
line with human resource policies
13.3
25.8
46.4
14.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
The induction process of new employees is appropriate fair and supportive
19.7
35.5 34.6
10.2
0
10
20
30
40
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
The Judiciary has a promotion policy that is clear and transparent
20.8
34.4 34.7
10.2
010203040
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Promotions at the Judiciary is based on merit
Figure 22: Staff selection, recruitment and promotion
Discipline on the other hand is important if emplyee morale and productivity is to be mentained. However, it should be noted that disciplinary process should be used carefully by following code of conduct and respecting workers rights. The survey sought to find out whether the disciplinary process is handled in a clear and transparent manner. Figure 23 shows the survey results.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
35
9.9 16.1
62.1
11.9
0
20
40
60
80
strongly disagree
disagree agree strongly agree
Disciplinary actions are handled according to the Code of Conduct
10.220
58.5
11.4
0
20
40
60
80
strongly disagree
disagree agree strongly agree
Disciplinary actions are handled objectively and fairly
11.1 18.2
58.8
11.9
0
20
40
60
80
strongly disagree
disagree agree strongly agree
Aggrieved staff are given opportunity to defend themselves
17.125.2
47.8
9.9
0102030405060
strongly disagree
disagree agree strongly agree
Disciplinary cases are handled within reasonable time
26.932.5 33.1
7.5
0
10
20
30
40
strongly disagree
disagree agree strongly agree
The Judiciary has in place an effective dispute resolution mechanism among the
staff
Figure 23 : Staff Discipline
The report recommends development and implementation of the scheme of service.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
36
CHAPTER FOUR
WORK ENVIRONMENT
4.0 Introduction
Work environment is the surrounding conditions in which judges, judicial officers and staff operate. It is composed of physical conditions, work processes and their effect on performance. This survey sought to determine factors in the work environment currently affecting employee performance. These include health and safety, premises cleanliness, office space and equipment, general work environment, conduciveness and care for the environment, disability, HIV/AIDS and Gender equality. The overall work environment index was 60.4% as summarized in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Work environment by court type
Type of the court
Factors
Sup
rem
e C
our
t
Co
urt o
f Ap
pea
l
Hig
h C
our
t
Emp
loym
ent
and
Lab
our
Re
latio
ns C
our
t
Envi
ronm
ent
and
La
nd
Co
urt
Mag
istr
ates
’ Co
urt
Kad
hi’s
Co
urt
Chi
ldre
n’s
Co
urt
Health and Safety 61.5 59.4 60.3 53.3 63.0 60.0 68.0 64.0
Premises Cleanliness 67.5 61.6 63.8 67.3 56.3 61.2 69.5 59.4
Office Space and Equipment 61.9 56.3 57.2 59.0 58.9 55.3 60.4 59.7
General Work Environment 61.5 54.2 60.1 59.5 64.6 59.4 68.7 66.0
Conduciveness and Care for Environment
60.4 58.0 61.2 51.5 59.2 61.2 68.7 66.8
Disability, HIV/AIDS and Gender Equality
61.9 62.9 64.6 57.5 61.2 65.0 68.5 67.0
Work Environment Indices 62.4 58.8 60.9 57.9 60.5 60.1 66.4 64.6
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
37
4.1 Disability, HIV/AIDS and Gender Equality
The staff members were asked to give their perception on issues concerning their satisfaction with regards to accessibility of premises and facilities for persons living with disability, awareness creation on HIV & AIDS and mainstreaming of gender into the programmes and projects undertaken by the Judiciary.
4.1.1 Disability
The persons with disabilities Act, 2003 provides for the rights of persons living with disabilities and advocates for mainstreaming of disability issues in all government policies, programmes and projects. Figure 24 presents the findings on mainstreaming of disability in the Judiciary where 63% of the respondents felt the Judiciary had mainstreamed disability into its programmes. The Survey also revealed that 61% of staff agreed that persons living with disability are treated equally in recruitment, appointment, promotion and training, 70% felt that persons living with disability were fairly treated in the Judiciary while 59% indicated that they get assistance promptly.
However, they were least satisfied with the ease of use of washrooms by persons living with disability 34% about 52% of the respondent acknowledged provision of facilities that enhance accessibility by
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
38
Figure 24: Satisfaction indices for parameters in disability, HIV/AIDS and gender equality at the judiciary
The report recommends the following: (i) Design of facilities in the Judiciary to always consider persons with
disability, (ii) Washrooms to be modified to take care of persons with disability
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
39
(iii) Enhance accessibility by employees living with disability to key facilities. This would be ensuring each building is equipped with disability friendly facilities and equipment such as ramps, elevators, walkways, washrooms, among others,
(iv) Establishment of structures for provision of prompt assistance to persons living with disabilities.
4.1.2 HIV/AIDS
The Survey established that 85% of the respondents agreed that there was absence of discrimination of staff at work place on the basis of their HIV/AIDS status while 73% were satisfied with observation of confidentiality of the HIV status of staff. However, only 57% of the respondents indicated that they had been sensitised on HIV/AIDS related issues as presented in Figure 25.
There is no discrimination of staff due to HIV status HIV Status of staff is kept confidential
I have been sensitized on HIV/AIDS related issues
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
16.2%
68.3%
45.4%
10.2% 15.4%
28.0%
9.4%
59.8%
17.3%
9.8%13.1%6.1%
Figure 25: Level of satisfaction with HIV/AIDS policies and practices
The report recommends the following:
(i) Continuous sensitization for judges, judicial officers and staff on HIV and AIDS,
(ii) Sensitisation of staff on HIV/AIDS and related issues should be integrated into the training programmes.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
40
4.1.3 Gender Mainstreaming
Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya provides for non-discrimination of any person on the basis of gender among others. In addition, Article 81(b) provides that no more than two thirds of all elective public positions should go to either gender. In this regard, 63% of the respondents acknowledged full compliance with this requirement by the Judiciary. Further, 74% indicated absence of gender based violence and 66% reported absence of sexual harassment while 65% agreed that Judiciary had created awareness on gender related issues. Figure 26 illustrates the findings of the survey.
There is full implementation of the one-thirdgender rule
There is no gender-based discrimination atworkplace
The Judiciary has created awareness ongender related issues
There is no sexual haressment at workplace
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
70.0%57.2%
24.7%
10.0% 8.0%
60.0%50.0%40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0%
0.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
8.7%15.1%
60.7%
15.5%
60.0%
40.0%50.0%
30.0%20.0%10.0%
11.9%
25.1%
54.8%
8.2%
0.0%
60.0%70.0%
40.0%50.0%
30.0%20.0%10.0%
8.8%17.0% 13.0%
61.1%
0.0%
Figure 26: Level of satisfaction with Gender mainstreaming
The report recommends the following: (i) Operationalizition of 30% gender rule, intensifying awareness on
gender related issues and strengthening redress mechanisms for gender based violence and sexual harassment.
4.2 Health and Safety
The main goal of Occupational Health and Safety programs is to foster a safe and healthy work environment. This aims at protecting Judiciary’s
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
41
employees and customers who might be affected by the workplace environment. The overall satisfaction level of respondents with health and safety measures in the judiciary was 60.2%.
Figure 27 exhibits percentage of employees reporting satisfaction with health and safety measures in place at the Judiciary. It reveals that 84% agreed that the Judiciary was concerned with employees’ health and safety while 70% agreed that the Judiciary communicated its health and safety policy to employees. However, 36% were satisfied with the training received on health and safety at work place.
The Judiciary is concerned about health & safety ofits employees
I am satisfied with treining I have recoived on health andsafety at work place
The Judiciary has communicated its health & safetypolicy to employees
Strongly Disagree
DisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
Strongly DisagreeDisagree
AgreeStrongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
DisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
19.6%
49.8%
10.2%
9.7%
6.1%
25.4%
20.5%
7.6%
28.2%
21.9%
42.2%
58.8%
Figure 27: Percentage of respondents reporting satisfaction with health and safety policies
With regard to health, Figure 28 illustrates that 72% of the respondents agreed on the availability of sufficient mechanisms to ensure health and well-being of employees. However, majority of employees 80% were not satisfied with the trainings on First Aid. Similarly, (84%) indicated lack of regular fire drills in the Judiciary.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
42
There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensurehealth and well-being of employees
I am satisfied with the way The judiciary has trainedstaff on first AID
Strongly Disagree
DisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
12.7%
2.5%
49.4%
35.3%
Fire drills are conducted regularly
20.1%9.1%
18.9%
52.0%46.6%
16.7%
3.5%
33.2%
Figure 28: Percentage of satisfaction with health measures
Figure 29 reveals that 52% of the employees were not satisfied with the level security of staff and equipment. However, there was improvement 58% regarding the prevailing condition and safety of employees work stations. With regard to fire safety; 38% indicated availability of fire fighting equipment in the premises; a low of 27% confirmed availability of clearly labeled fire exits; while a high of 84% indicated lack of regular fire drills in the Judiciary.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
43
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
28.0%33.8% 32.5%
5.8%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
9.1%
18.8%
9.7%
62.5%70.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
40.0%
50.0%
30.0%
20.0%
20.5%
31.5%
41.0%
7.0%10.0%
0.0%
14.7%
27.8%
47.8%
9.6%
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree Strongly AgreeStronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Wires and cables are well protected I.e no bare orhanging wires
There are clearly labelled fire exits in case ofemergency escape
60.0%50.0%40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0%
0.0%
50.0%
40.0%40.2%
4.3%
32.1%
23.5%30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
15.7%
26.7%
50.8%
6.9%
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
There is adequate security for staff & Equipment
The conditions and safety of my work station at themoment is good
There is fire fighting equipment at my place of workto minimize risks
Work-related accidents & illness are reported toimmediate supervisor
Figure 29: Percentage of satisfaction with safety measures
The report recommends the following:
(i) Improve security for staff and equipment at the Judiciary premises by installing security cameras, security scanners, and personnel, building perimeter walls and by introducing inventory movement registers and tags, among others,
(ii) Provide adequate fire-fighting equipment in all buildings and ensure they are regularly serviced,
(iii) Properly labeled fire exits and regular training on fire drills and trainings be regularised,
(iv) Continuous sensitization on first aid and general safety to provide emergency assistance in incidences of work related accidents. First aid boxes should be fitted in strategic locations in all buildings of the judiciary.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
44
4.3 Premises Cleanliness
Clean surroundings are an important factor in increasing work productivity. Keeping offices clean at all times will create a more productive atmosphere. In this survey, six parameters were investigated giving an overall satisfaction index of premises cleanliness of 62.3 %.The staff were most satisfied with the cleaning of offices as required, with an index of 69%, followed by the availability and strategic placement of litter bins at 67%. However, they were least satisfied with the cleanliness and supply of necessary toiletries in the washrooms for their use at 49%, the adequacy of drinking water at 52% and the adoption of appropriate sanitation at 52%.
Figure 30: Satisfaction with Premises Cleanliness
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
45
The report recommends the following:
(i) Maintenance of appropriate sanitation and hygiene standards in the offices, courtrooms and shared facilities,
(ii) Cleanliness of staff and public washrooms and supply of necessary toiletries should be prioritised.
4.4 Office Space and Equipment
Adequate office space enhances employee productivity while proper office equipment keeps the operations of the institution running smoothly and efficiently. The survey indicated a satisfaction level of 56.2% on office space and equipment. As presented in Figure 31, the staff were most dissatisfied 58% with the quality of facilities in their offices while 51% felt that there was adequate parking space in the Judiciary. Only 47% were happy with the design of their work stations and general ergonomics and 54% with the location of their work station. There was general dissatisfaction with the adequacy of office space with 68% dissatisfied while 71% of staff were dissatisfied with adequacy of seats. However, 52% agreed that they had adequate equipment to do their job.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
46
Figure 31: Satisfaction with Office and Equipment
The report recommends the following: i. Provision of adequate office space for judges, judicial officers and
staff, ii. The design and location of work stations should be facilitative and
general ergonomics prioritised, iii. Offices should be adequately equipped with requisite office
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
47
furniture and equipment, iv. Provision of adequate parking space.
4.5 General Work Environment
A positive work environment makes employees feel good about coming to work and this provides the motivation to sustain them throughout the day. Five parameters were investigated under general work environment and the results revealed staff satisfaction index of 59.7%. About 51% were satisfied with temperature, humidity and airflow at work place while 54% were satisfied with the availability of open work environment.
Majority of staff (68%) indicated that their work load was reasonable while 68% indicated that work stress did not affect their performance. There was less than positive feedback on the Kenya Judicial Staff Association where 44% believed that it is active, and 49% don’t know how to contact the association. Further, the Survey revealed that documents in Judiciary are easily retrievable.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
48
Figure 32: Satisfaction with general work environment
The report recommends development and implementation of Judiciary work environment management policy.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
49
4.6 Conduciveness and Care for Environment
Aspects regarding the conduciveness and care for work environment were investigated and the results are presented in Figure 33. The overall satisfaction level stood at 61.1% indicating that the staff were satisfied with the conduciveness of and care for environment. The staff members were in least agreement that there existed an environment policy for the Judiciary at 44% and continuity in environment care at 48%. Similarly, only 35% agreed that there is a designated office/officer handling environmental issues.
40.0%
50.0%
30.0%
20.0%19.7%
32.5%
42.2%
5.5%10.0%
0.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
22.7%
33.0%39.7%
4.6%
StronglyDisagree
Disagree AgreeAgree
StronglyStronglyDisagree
Disagree AgreeAgree
Strongly
StronglyDisagree
Disagree AgreeAgree
Strongly
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
The Judiciary has shown continuity in Environment Care
The Judiciary has a work environment policy There is a designated office/officer handlingwork environment issues
26.0%
38.6%
30.8%
4.5%
Figure 33: Satisfaction with Conduciveness of and Care for the EnvironmentThe report recommends the following:
(i) The Judiciary should develop an environment management policy,
(ii) Administrative units should be mandated to coordinate and follow-up environmental issues.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
50
CHAPTER FIVE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
5.0 Recommendations Implementation Matrix
The implementation matrix provides a road-map for successful implementation of the recommendations of the survey report. In this regard, there is need therefore, for leadership from the CJ, CRJ, Registrars, Directors, and Heads of various courts in implementation of this report.
Table 10: Recommendations Implementation MatrixMeasure Recommendation Responsibility
Customer Satisfaction Index
Conduct awareness campaigns on Judiciary mandate, core values and services through service weeks, talk shows and outreach programmes
CRJ
Strengthen customer care desks by providing adequate training to judicial staff in charge
Registrars
Provide adequate Information Communication and Education materials to customer care desks
DPAC
Develop and implement registry manuals to improve efficiency at court registries
Registrars
Enforce compliance timelines on performance standards on hearing and determination of cases, file retrieval and typing of proceedings and judgement
PMD
Display service delivery charters at all court stations HOSs
Enforce compliance with service delivery charter standards
Registrars
Strengthen alternative dispute resolution mechanisms CRJ
Sensitize litigants on notarizing services Registrars
Strengthen provision of pro-bono services Registrars
Mainstream timely payment and refund of cash bail/bond
CRJ
Review court fees for improved access to court services CRJ
Sensitize litigants on role of Ombudsman and Court User Committees
HOSs
Enhance public engagement and media outreach to boost public confidence
CRJ
Mainstream reform initiatives across courts to sustain positive institutional image
CRJ
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
51
Measure Recommendation Responsibility
E m p l o y e e Satisfaction Index
Adopt of regular performance feedback from supervisors PMDTrain judicial staff on computer and data interpretation ICT
Conduct training needs assessments for judges, judicial officers and staff
HRMA
Train judges, judicial officers and staff on priority skills and competencies
HRMA
Equal distribution of training opportunities HRMA
Develop and implement Judiciary internal communication policy
DPAC
Formulate and implement an incentive scheme for judges, judicial officers and staff
PMMSC
Work Environment Index
Design court prototype with provision for persons with disability
CRJ
Sensitize judges, judicial officers and staff on HIV and AIDS
CRJ
Promote infrastructure accessibility by employees living with disability to key facilities
CRJ
Formulate and implement redress mechanisms for gender based violence and sexual harassment
CRJ
Operationalize30% gender rule and awareness on gender related issues
CRJ
Improve security for staff and equipment at the Judiciary premises by installing security cameras, security scanners, and personnel, building perimeter walls and by introducing inventory movement registers and tags
CRJ
Provide adequate and regularly serviced fire fighting equipment in all buildings
CRJ
Install adequate security signage at all courts eg. Fire exits and fire drills
CRJ
Sensitize judges, judicial officers and staff on first aid procedures
CRJ
Equip all courts with First aid boxes at strategic locations CRJ
Maintain appropriate sanitation and hygiene standards in the offices, courtrooms and shared facilities
HOSs
Ensure clean staff and public washrooms and supply necessary toiletries at all courts
HOSs
Provide adequate office space for judges, judicial officers and staff
CRJ
Equip all courts and offices with adequate furniture and equipment
CRJ
Provide adequate parking space for all judges, judicial officers and staff
CRJ
Develop and implement of Judiciary work environment management policy
HRMA
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
52
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
The Customer Satisfaction Survey was undertaken to establish the satisfaction levels of the Judiciary’s customers and assess the customer’s perception on quality of service delivery. The customer survey targeted litigants and their families and friends, plaintiffs, victims and witnesses including experts for the case, advocates, law enforcement officers, contractors and suppliers, media and development partners. Employee and work environment survey on the other hand was undertaken to establish the level of employee morale, how employees perceive the workplace, assess teamwork and management activities.
The Overall Customer Satisfaction Index was 66.8% while that for employee and work environment were 66.5% and 60.4% respectively. This was based on 4-point Likert scale computation. The results show general satisfaction according to this scale. It is therefore imperative for the Judiciary to implement the Report recommendations.
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
53
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Customer satisfaction indices per court
Court nameC
lear
mis
sio
n, v
isio
n a
nd
co
re v
alu
es
Cu
sto
mer
car
e d
esk
and
re
gis
try
Loca
tio
n, e
qu
ipm
ent
and
fa
cilit
ies
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
to
cu
sto
mer
s
Serv
ice
qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
Jud
ges
an
d M
agis
trat
es
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
jud
icia
l sta
ff
Inst
itu
tio
nal
im
age
Co
mp
lain
t h
and
ling
Ove
rall
Sati
sfac
tio
n In
dex
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court 74.7 79.9 74.7 69 64.1 74.9 71.9 72.8 72.9 72.3
COURT OF APPEAL
Eldoret Court of Appeal 100 100 97.2 63.9 75 100 75 75 75 85.3
Kisumu Court of Appeal 87.3 81.3 75.6 70.1 76 83.3 81 91.7 70 78.6
Nairobi Court of Appeal 70.3 66.3 73.1 67.5 68.5 70.8 67.8 75 58.8 69.7
Nakuru Court of Appeal 56.8 59.8 47.4 43.1 45.7 51.8 57.7 45.8 50 50.2
HIGH COURT/ DIVISIONS
Bungoma High Court 73.8 83.3 75.2 70.9 57.2 67.9 79.5 76 67.5 72.3
Busia High Court 77.1 80.7 65.9 66.2 62.3 73.4 74.7 64.6 60 69.9
Eldoret High Court 69.4 75.6 63.5 61.2 62.8 85 76.9 74.6 63.9 69
Embu High Court 64 67.8 64.4 59.7 60.3 75.6 69.3 73.1 60.1 65.1
Garissa High Court 76.8 79.5 79.2 80.8 82.2 80.4 78.6 85.7 55 79.6
Homa Bay High Court 74 75 54.5 59.4 66.8 80.3 75 76.3 56.3 67.3
Kakamega High Court 68.8 73.7 59.8 54.7 56.6 72.9 70.8 69 44 64.8
Kericho High Court 73.7 77.9 71.1 70.4 68.5 84.1 77.4 80.8 76 74
Kerugoya High Court 77.3 79 76.5 76.9 73.8 76.4 76.1 75 77.1 74.9
Kisii High Court 65.3 63.4 61.9 57.4 59.1 69.3 61.2 64.8 60.4 61.8
Kisumu High Court 82.8 87.2 74.8 72 71.1 79.7 79.1 77.7 71 77.5
Kitale High Court 63.7 78.8 67.1 62 59.3 63.1 66.4 65.9 54.3 65.7
Machakos High Court 65.6 70.9 64.5 66.4 64.1 73.2 73.3 70 56.3 67.4
Malindi High Court 59 68.4 69 56 54.4 66.4 75.5 60 55 63.4
Meru High Court 58.8 60.3 61.9 52.7 62.4 65.9 62.6 59.6 43 60.6
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
54
Court name
Cle
ar m
issi
on
, vis
ion
an
d
core
val
ues
Cu
sto
mer
car
e d
esk
and
re
gis
try
Loca
tio
n, e
qu
ipm
ent
and
fa
cilit
ies
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
to
cu
sto
mer
s
Serv
ice
qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
Jud
ges
an
d M
agis
trat
es
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
jud
icia
l sta
ff
Inst
itu
tio
nal
im
age
Co
mp
lain
t h
and
ling
Ove
rall
Sati
sfac
tio
n In
dex
Milimani Civil Division 72 67.6 74.8 67.3 68.4 80.7 68.8 68.8 63.1 70.3
Milimani Commercial and Admirality Division
66.6 67.8 69.1 62.1 63.7 76.2 60.1 64.5 57.5 65.7
Milimani Constitutional Human Rights Division
76 86.7 81.3 68.9 61.3 82.8 84.4 78.1 62.9 76.1
Milimani Criminal Division
69.8 72.8 70.6 64.2 64.4 71.1 71 74.2 65.2 68.7
Milimani Environment & Land Division
62.1 71.7 66.5 58.9 62.3 85.3 73.8 69.8 63.8 67.2
Milimani Judicial Review Division
66.7 75.7 72.5 63.6 63.8 83.9 77.5 70 48.6 70.5
Mombasa High Court 64.4 59.8 60.6 50.7 53.5 70 64.2 57.2 52.3 59.3
Muranga High Court 73.5 79.7 69.9 74.7 73.5 85.9 86.8 78.1 0 74.9
Nakuru High Court 80.8 82.3 64.2 55.6 52.3 67.6 75.8 92.9 46.7 67.8
Nyeri High Court 71.2 71.2 69.4 56.7 62.9 77.1 72.5 78.3 63.1 68
Nairobi Industrial Court 63.5 63 70 51.8 63.4 70.7 68.7 61.1 57.8 63.9
MAGISTRATE COURTS
Baricho Magistrate Court 74.9 76.9 74.7 71.2 69 71.6 75.1 65 65.9 72.8
Bomet Magistrate Court 67.3 52.3 45.6 40.5 48 48.2 49.8 45.3 53.2 49.2
Bondo Magistrate Court 66.8 69.3 59.6 58.1 62.8 68.3 66.7 67.8 54.6 63.3
Bungoma Magistrate Court
75.8 83.4 74 69.7 63.4 79.6 77.6 79.5 50 74.1
Busia Magistrate Court 75.7 83.8 77.1 70 65 80.3 80.2 74.7 56.3 74.9
Butali Magistrate Court 70.2 72.1 61.7 60 62.9 72.7 71.6 66.8 52 66.2
Butere Magistrate Court 69.5 73 63 62.4 64.9 73.3 71.7 69.9 58.3 67.7
Chuka Magistrate Court 71.2 75.8 67.6 69.8 63.5 77.4 76.5 70.8 67.4 70.3
Eldama Ravine Magistrate Court
64.5 69.6 53.2 48.3 51.3 60.2 62.4 60.1 52.7 57.3
Eldoret Magistrate Court 63.7 70.1 61.9 54.4 59.6 70.7 66 65.3 56.3 62.7
Embu Magistrate Court 71.7 70.5 67.5 55 60.7 81.6 65.7 78.8 72.5 66.8
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
55
Court name
Cle
ar m
issi
on
, vis
ion
an
d
core
val
ues
Cu
sto
mer
car
e d
esk
and
re
gis
try
Loca
tio
n, e
qu
ipm
ent
and
fa
cilit
ies
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
to
cu
sto
mer
s
Serv
ice
qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
Jud
ges
an
d M
agis
trat
es
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
jud
icia
l sta
ff
Inst
itu
tio
nal
im
age
Co
mp
lain
t h
and
ling
Ove
rall
Sati
sfac
tio
n In
dex
Engineer Magistrate Court
63.4 79.4 63.9 74 52.2 76.3 75 69.4 80 67.6
Garissa Magistrate Court 79.8 79.9 76.8 78.1 74.1 80.2 75.4 78.8 58.6 76.7
Garsen Magistrate Court 86.4 90.3 78.5 79.1 88.5 91.9 91.1 88.9 60 85.6
Gatundu Magistrate Court
56.9 70.6 59.7 51.6 54.2 51.1 62.9 46.9 47 57.2
Gichugu Magistrate Court
70.8 76.9 71.6 67.3 66.6 71.9 74.6 68.8 61.7 71.2
Githongo Magistrate Court
77.3 77.5 80.4 80.2 72.6 93.3 90.9 83.7 80.7 80
Githunguri Magistrate Court
67.5 71.9 58.3 56.3 60.5 46.2 70.9 41 25 61.4
Hamisi Magistrate Court 60.8 68.5 52.1 55.1 54.4 69.7 62.5 62.5 53.3 59
Hola Magistrate Court 71.6 82.9 65.3 62 64.8 95.5 94.7 81.7 65 74.9
Homa Bay Magistrate Court
71.5 76.6 66.4 68.6 65.6 75.9 71.6 75.6 72.9 70.1
Isiolo Magistrate Court 70.9 69.4 60.5 65.4 64.5 73.6 76 65.4 60.4 66.5
Iten Magistrate Court 68.7 77 68.6 66.5 63.1 74.6 73.3 73.8 56.9 69.9
Kabarnet Magistrate Court
66.1 73.3 73.3 65.8 72.2 78 75.2 73.6 52.5 71.7
Kajiado Magistrate Court 68.4 67.2 63.4 65.4 64.7 72.6 69.1 64.9 61.8 67
Kakamega Magistrate Court
70.6 72.8 61.3 56.1 58.1 73.3 71 67.2 59.6 65.4
Kakuma Magistrate Court 68.5 51 31.8 42.2 44.2 76.4 69.2 71.9 48.3 49.4
Kaloleni Magistrate Court 73.7 77.7 64.6 67.5 65.6 76.7 71.6 68.8 68 69.8
Kandara Magistrate Court 71.5 73.4 65.7 61.9 59.7 69.6 71.4 60 50.7 66
Kangema Magistrate Court
74.7 80.4 77.4 67.1 70.5 76.2 70.3 68.8 54.6 73.3
Kangundo Magistrate Court
65.1 75.3 63.7 71.5 58.5 75.3 77.3 71.9 73 68.4
Kapenguria Magistrate Court
75 51.2 52.2 50 64.6 75 70.8 75 75 59.8
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
56
Court name
Cle
ar m
issi
on
, vis
ion
an
d
core
val
ues
Cu
sto
mer
car
e d
esk
and
re
gis
try
Loca
tio
n, e
qu
ipm
ent
and
fa
cilit
ies
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
to
cu
sto
mer
s
Serv
ice
qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
Jud
ges
an
d M
agis
trat
es
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
jud
icia
l sta
ff
Inst
itu
tio
nal
im
age
Co
mp
lain
t h
and
ling
Ove
rall
Sati
sfac
tio
n In
dex
Kapsabet Magistrate Court
68 69.8 56.1 53.4 61.1 72.8 72.8 62.5 52.5 62.9
Karatina Magistrate Court 61.2 70.1 68.2 54.1 62 74.4 74.6 74.4 58.2 65.6
Kehancha Magistrate Court
61.5 71.9 65 67.6 62.5 72.1 72.9 68.8 60 67.3
Kericho Magistrate Court 73 70.3 67.5 63.4 64.2 76.3 69.1 70.5 67.6 68.3
Keroka Magistrate Court 77.6 84.2 69.5 72 66.1 74.7 77.5 77.5 51.7 73.6
Kerugoya Magistrate Court
76.9 77.7 81 75.2 74 76.8 79.2 70.8 77 76.4
Kiambu Magistrate Court 73.7 66.3 66.9 58 62.8 78.7 66.3 70.5 62.3 66.3
Kibera Magistrate Court 49.4 67.1 55.3 57.2 46.6 72.8 63.7 58.8 60.7 57.6
Kigumo Magistrate Court 79.2 79.7 72.5 71.8 74.3 72.5 73.3 75 70.5 74.4
Kikuyu Magistrate Court 60.4 72.6 56.8 58.2 55.6 58.3 63.1 52.4 39.6 59.2
Kilgoris Magistrate Court 69.8 68.4 46.5 41.2 54.3 75.5 71.9 72 47.8 58.8
Kilifi Magistrate Court 65.4 71 65.8 64.7 61.4 68.9 71.8 66.2 56.8 66.7
Kilungu/Nunguni Magistrate Court
63.5 60.4 64.2 56.7 52.1 77.6 67.3 67.3 72.5 61.7
Kimilili Magistrate Court 71.3 73 62.8 60.5 63 73 73.4 70.4 66.7 67.6
Kisii Magistrate Court 64.4 63.3 61.1 58.8 57.6 66.8 58.5 65.8 61.9 60.9
Kisumu Magistrate Court 75.5 77.6 71.4 67.8 67.8 81.6 76.4 75.3 67.6 73.1
Kitale Magistrate Court 66.2 70.2 66.2 63 60.9 71.5 72.7 66.3 63.7 66.2
Kithimani Magistrate Court
62.6 78.1 66.3 67.1 65 78.6 77.8 77.5 70 70.3
Kitui Magistrate Court 71.8 77.8 76.1 75.2 63.9 72.5 72.6 81.9 61 72.2
Kwale Magistrate Court 68.9 75.7 63.1 61.2 53.9 86.9 77 62.5 45.8 67.3
Kyuso magistrate Court 67 68 56.2 64.8 52.8 61.7 70 54.7 75 61.5
Lamu Magistrate Court 72.5 86.6 67.2 70.9 69.4 90.4 87.5 75 71.9 75.7
Limuru Magistrate Court 70.7 75 73.8 64.9 61.1 79.7 76.5 77 77 70.6
Lodwar Magistrate Court 57.5 59.4 47.7 54.9 51.9 68.8 50 59.4 75 53.7
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
57
Court name
Cle
ar m
issi
on
, vis
ion
an
d
core
val
ues
Cu
sto
mer
car
e d
esk
and
re
gis
try
Loca
tio
n, e
qu
ipm
ent
and
fa
cilit
ies
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
to
cu
sto
mer
s
Serv
ice
qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
Jud
ges
an
d M
agis
trat
es
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
jud
icia
l sta
ff
Inst
itu
tio
nal
im
age
Co
mp
lain
t h
and
ling
Ove
rall
Sati
sfac
tio
n In
dex
Machakos Magistrate court
60.1 70 62.6 66.3 58.7 68.2 67.8 63.5 56.9 64.2
Makadara Magistrate Court
55.3 75.1 55.1 56.8 50.8 89.5 74.4 53.7 51.5 61.3
Makindu Magistrate Court
58.4 55.7 54.2 56.5 55.1 68.8 61.6 62.5 54.8 57.6
Makueni Magistrate Court
63.9 71.4 56.4 58.9 57.4 68.8 70.8 66.7 75 63.2
Malindi Magistrate Court 59.9 69.7 73.3 59.9 56.8 68.2 68.4 57.2 61.9 63.6
Mandera Magistrate Court
68.1 74.2 74.2 73.9 72.7 73.5 70.8 78.4 50.7 72.3
Maralal Magistrate Court 74.6 82.9 69 74.3 66 86.8 83 68.1 50 75.5
Mariakani Magistrate Court
65.3 61.2 69.1 68.3 58.8 71.2 71.5 69 73.3 65.9
Marimanti Magistrate Court
70.7 69.7 61.1 68.1 67.5 72.7 68.9 75 62.8 67.2
Marsabit Magistrate Court
79.9 83.7 71.2 79.6 71.2 83.5 81.8 75 44.4 76.9
Maseno Magistrate Court 66.6 70.2 62.7 64.5 62.1 74.4 72.7 72.7 71.3 66.9
Maua Magistrate Court 61.9 61.2 60.5 63.4 58.7 69.4 66.9 61.1 51.8 61.6
Mavoko Magistrate Court 74.7 77.8 68.8 72.9 67.7 74 75.2 71.9 62.9 72
Mbita Magistrate Court 68.2 72.8 68.5 61.4 63.2 71.6 70.4 72.5 60.5 66.7
Meru Magistrate Court 60.7 65 60.3 56.6 58.7 66.9 62.9 54.3 46.6 60.7
Migori Magistrate Court 68.3 74.7 66 65.3 65 69.6 70.3 65 65.7 67.7
Milimani Anti-corruption Court
65.7 64.6 65.4 58.5 56.8 78.5 64.8 56.6 65 63.7
Milimani Children’s Division
69.9 68.8 69.5 63.7 63.7 72.2 66.7 70 56.3 67.4
Milimani Commercial Court
68 69.1 64.7 63 60.1 72.9 64.1 71.6 47.8 65
Milimani Family Court 60.8 72.8 64.2 60 54.6 81.6 70.7 64 59.3 64
Milimani Magistrate Court
65 72.3 64.2 63.3 57.3 73.8 69 64.7 53.4 65.3
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
58
Court name
Cle
ar m
issi
on
, vis
ion
an
d
core
val
ues
Cu
sto
mer
car
e d
esk
and
re
gis
try
Loca
tio
n, e
qu
ipm
ent
and
fa
cilit
ies
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
to
cu
sto
mer
s
Serv
ice
qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
Jud
ges
an
d M
agis
trat
es
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
jud
icia
l sta
ff
Inst
itu
tio
nal
im
age
Co
mp
lain
t h
and
ling
Ove
rall
Sati
sfac
tio
n In
dex
Molo Magistrate Court 76.3 79.4 63.7 64.3 64.6 76.9 76.4 73.3 69.6 70.5
Mombasa Magistrate Court
69.1 64.4 65.1 54.1 58.8 74.4 65.5 67.3 54.9 63.6
Moyale Magistrate Court 77.7 83.8 63.8 85 72.8 90.6 90.6 74 58.5 78.3
Mukurwe-ini Magistrate Court
67.6 75.6 62.8 58.8 68.6 81.3 79.2 80.8 71.7 70
Mumias Magistrate Court 68 72.3 61.1 59.6 60.2 71.1 72.2 65.2 42.5 66
Muranga Magistrate Court
72.1 80.9 73.2 68.5 70.7 78 75.3 67.1 58.3 72.3
Mutumo Magistrate Court
73 85.7 40.7 42.6 47.7 87.5 89.6 75 65 63.5
Mwingi Magistrate Court 79.4 83 77.9 74.2 62.4 81.9 83.8 82.8 74.8 76.7
Nairobi City Court 56.5 61.7 57.6 56 57.8 72.2 69.4 57.6 56.1 61.1
Naivasha Magistrate Court
75.5 66.9 72.2 72 62.4 77.9 74.5 76 70.8 70.9
Nakuru Magistrate Court 60.2 65.4 52.2 50.7 47.6 60.6 61.1 68.1 51.1 56.2
Nanyuki Magistrate Court 66.5 77.9 65.5 66.2 55.5 75.7 75.5 72.4 55 67.3
Narok Magistrate Court 68.8 56 59.1 45.4 57.5 60.2 58.8 59.6 70.2 57.9
Ndhiwa Magistrate Court 77.5 77.4 61.3 67.2 71.5 79.9 75.7 81.9 71.7 71.3
Nkubu Cagistrate Court 66 69 68.8 65 68.8 72.7 70.7 62.5 59.4 68.1
Nyahururu Magistrate Court
66.7 71.6 67.2 70.8 53 75 73.8 71.6 60 67.8
Nyamira Magistrate Court 66.9 72.4 57.1 60.2 61.8 70.8 69 67.1 67.5 64
Nyando Magistrate Court 75.8 70 63.6 62 64 78.3 74.6 78.6 58.3 68.9
Nyeri Magistrate Court 60.5 77.8 72.8 56.3 57.9 75.3 76.1 76.2 60.4 67.3
Ogembo Magistrate Court
68.3 70.4 53.2 52.1 63.1 70.7 66.7 70.1 40.6 61.7
Othaya Magistrate Court 72.2 75.4 58.5 61.1 65.2 81.3 79.2 76.8 69.7 68.7
Oyugis Magistrate Court 72.9 80.5 67.3 62.8 66.9 71.3 72.3 66.1 67 69.9
Rongo Magistrate Court 75.3 77.9 64.3 67.4 70.9 77.1 75 86.7 87.5 72.4
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
59
Court name
Cle
ar m
issi
on
, vis
ion
an
d
core
val
ues
Cu
sto
mer
car
e d
esk
and
re
gis
try
Loca
tio
n, e
qu
ipm
ent
and
fa
cilit
ies
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
to
cu
sto
mer
s
Serv
ice
qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
Jud
ges
an
d M
agis
trat
es
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
jud
icia
l sta
ff
Inst
itu
tio
nal
im
age
Co
mp
lain
t h
and
ling
Ove
rall
Sati
sfac
tio
n In
dex
Runyenjes Magistrate Court
71.6 75.6 63.5 52.6 56.6 79.9 70 73.9 63.1 66.4
Shanzu Magistrate Court 64.1 64.2 65 59.2 57.7 71.9 74.3 74.3 54.2 64.9
Siakago Magistrate Court 63 77.4 60.8 56.6 53.8 76.6 74 74.2 60.7 65.2
Siaya Magistrate Court 66 74 61.8 66.2 62.3 68.9 65.6 61.9 58.9 65.4
Sirisia Magistrate Court 69.7 75 65.4 62 62.2 75.2 71.5 72 62.1 68.6
Sotik Magistrate Court 62.3 65.4 52.1 45.1 52.8 64.5 66.4 61.4 55.6 56.7
Tamu Magistrate Court 83.4 77.9 69.2 68.4 66.1 77.5 82.1 75.8 52.5 74.1
Taveta Magistrate Court 80.9 82 74.3 61.2 51 86.4 84.4 75 40 71.7
Tawa Magistrate Court 70.5 74.1 65.1 72.1 66.7 80.7 74.7 76 73.6 71.1
Thika Magistrate Court 66.1 73.4 68.7 61.5 55.9 77.4 74.1 64.1 61.1 67
Tigania Magistrate Court 64.9 68.5 60.2 61.7 52.9 72.1 66.8 62.5 46.3 62.7
Tononoka Magistrate Court
68.5 61.5 69.3 64.3 68.7 75 70.8 72.1 57.5 67.6
Ukwala Magistrate Court 82.6 86.4 69.5 59.6 65.5 78.3 75.8 85.7 52.2 74
Vihiga Magistrate Court 61.9 67.7 50.6 53.6 56.1 74.7 67.3 65.6 53.3 59.9
Voi Magistrate Court 62.1 73.9 59.7 58.8 55.5 66.6 64.6 61.8 48.7 62.0
Wajir Magistrate Court 71.5 66.4 76.5 68.8 67.7 65.6 71.3 71.9 46.7 70.0
Wanguru Magistrate Court
74.1 77.8 71 66.7 67.4 77.7 77.3 78.8 75 72.7
Webuye Magistrate Court 71.5 77.8 69.3 66.5 64.4 78.1 76.4 72.8 69.6 70.9
Winam Magistrate Court 80.3 70.4 64.8 62.3 63.6 79.4 79.4 82.5 62.5 70.6
Wundanyi Magistrate Court
75.8 83.5 78.9 73 48.6 81.3 81.4 79.2 63.2 73.7
KADHI COURTS
Bungoma Kadhi Court 78.1 78.9 75.5 76.4 58.1 75 85.4 71.9 0 74.2
Garissa Kadhi Court 77.3 75.9 78.1 82.7 75.1 79.7 81.6 75 52.9 77.2
Garsen Kadhi Court 78 82.3 70.6 67.5 71.5 88 81.7 83.6 68.9 76.0
Hola Kadhi Court 79.6 90.3 69.1 66.1 67.2 95 90.5 70.5 40.0 76.1
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
60
Court name
Cle
ar m
issi
on
, vis
ion
an
d
core
val
ues
Cu
sto
mer
car
e d
esk
and
re
gis
try
Loca
tio
n, e
qu
ipm
ent
and
fa
cilit
ies
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
to
cu
sto
mer
s
Serv
ice
qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
Jud
ges
an
d M
agis
trat
es
Cu
sto
mer
s’ p
erce
pti
on
of
jud
icia
l sta
ff
Inst
itu
tio
nal
im
age
Co
mp
lain
t h
and
ling
Ove
rall
Sati
sfac
tio
n In
dex
Isiolo Kadhi Court 70.8 75 68.1 72.2 77.4 75 75 79.2 62.5 73.6
Kajiado Kadhi Court 70.8 93.8 83.3 100 90 93.8 91.7 100 100 90.7
Kilifi Kadhi Court 71.9 75 73.1 75 75.3 77.8 75 75 75.0 75.0
Kisumu Kadhi Court 77.6 79.2 65.5 61.5 63.7 80.4 77.7 71.4 65.0 70.9
Kitale Kadhi Court 100 75 69.2 0 65 75 75 100 0 75.5
Kwale Kadhi Court 70.9 94.4 71.4 81.6 42.1 98.2 88 85.4 62.5 76.4
Lamu Kadhi Court 72 75.5 64 72.6 69 83.8 86.1 83.7 63.6 72.8
Machakos Kadhi Court 66.7 75.3 61.9 73.4 62.4 74.6 73.8 73.3 50 68.3
Malindi Kadhi Court 64.1 75.9 76.6 75.9 74.4 72.5 77.3 66.7 62.5 73.5
Mandera Kadhi Court 78.3 78.8 82.8 81.1 79.2 81.3 86.9 79.2 50.0 80.8
Mombasa Kadhi Court 72.1 67.7 76 65.4 65.2 75.8 74.1 79.2 55.5 70.2
Moyale Kadhi Court 75 81.3 70 91.7 79.2 100 100 87.5 87.5 85.0
Nairobi Kadhi Court 62.3 68.9 66.4 65.4 67.2 75.8 72.3 75 76.5 68.7
Wajir Kadhi Court 85.4 76.2 67.9 63.9 81.3 72.9 68.1 75 75 72.6
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
61
Appendix 2: Employee satisfaction and work environment indices by Court/Directorate/Office
Court/Directorate/Registries
Gene
ral O
pini
on o
f the
Judi
ciary
Sele
ctio
n, R
ecru
itmen
t and
Pr
omot
ion
Prac
tices
Inte
rnal
Com
mun
icatio
n at
the
Judi
ciary
Corp
orat
e Cu
lture
, Tea
m-w
ork
and
orga
nisa
tion
Staf
f Tra
inin
g an
d De
velo
pmen
t
Mot
ivat
ion,
Mor
ale
and
Reco
gniti
on
My
Imm
edia
te S
uper
viso
r
Rem
uner
atio
n an
d Be
nefit
s
Empl
oyee
Rel
atio
ns
Man
agem
ent a
nd Le
ader
ship
Empl
oym
ent E
ngag
emen
t
Wor
k/Li
fe B
alan
ce
Over
all E
mpl
oyee
Sat
isfa
ctio
n In
dex
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court 73.4 58 58.4 56.4 47.3 50.9 64.9 60.5 60.5 54.9 65.6 61.7 57.8
COURT OF APPEAL
Eldoret Court of Appeal 100 65 75 72.7 52.5 80 75 54.2 70 59.4 85.9 75 71.4
Kisumu Court of Appeal 76.4 60.8 65.2 66.6 53.5 62.8 67 59.4 66.1 66.4 73.3 64.2 65
Malindi Court of Appeal 86.1 65.4 67.1 73.8 48.8 63.6 73.3 61.6 64.2 66.1 73 58.7 65.9
Nairobi Court of Appeal 85.6 54.8 56.1 60.4 49.4 52.2 67.6 59.6 63.1 53.6 67.7 61.2 59.3
HIGH COURT/DIVISIONS
Bungoma High Court 87.5 80 71.9 66.7 65 60 71.9 95.8 100 65.6 75 75 72.2
Busia High Court 81.3 47.5 73.4 65.6 37.5 57.5 59.4 77.1 45 59.4 86.7 80.4 63.8
Eldoret High Court 83.8 61.9 71.6 70.3 50.5 64.3 66.5 66.7 69.1 66.1 79.3 63.5 66.9
Embu High Court 84.2 66.6 67 72.3 59.3 65.7 70.9 64.8 65.6 66.5 73.1 63.1 68
Garissa High Court 87.5 66.3 70.3 63 54.4 55 60.9 76 76.3 62.5 81.3 72.3 67.7
Homa Bay High Court 80.2 57.1 68.8 60.5 47.4 62.4 63.5 59.2 61.7 54.3 67.7 56 60.4
Kakamega High Court 80.7 58.4 68.9 67.9 59.3 61.7 69.7 62.3 64.6 61.8 76.1 64.7 66.1
Kericho High Court 86.5 68 70.6 71.1 52.9 62.5 75.3 62.2 62.2 66.8 72.1 63.6 66.8
Kerugoya High Court 79.2 68.3 70.4 71.9 63.9 58.8 64.4 67 71 65.2 74.3 61.5 66.9
Kisii High Court 82.6 58.7 66.6 67.7 56.8 55.9 73 62.9 56.5 55.1 71.8 65.3 63.9
Kisumu High Court 78.3 71.7 76.3 74 63.4 70.7 78.2 67.9 70.5 68.7 78.3 70.3 72.1
Kitale High Court 87.5 77.5 73.4 67 60 77.5 85.9 81.3 87.5 81.3 83.6 71.4 76.1
Machakos High Court 80.6 63.8 64.9 67.7 58.4 63.8 68.7 67.1 61.5 59.5 73.9 58.7 65
Malindi High Court 82.5 52.1 73.7 72.2 54.9 61 76.4 66.3 66.7 63.1 75 65.2 67.2
Meru High Court 83.5 65.3 69.6 71.6 59.4 62.9 70.4 63.4 65.9 66.8 75.5 64.6 67.6
Milimani Civil Division 84.4 45.4 52.4 57.6 42.5 48.8 64.1 69.4 43.3 54.3 64.8 61.9 56.3
Milimani Commercial And Admirality Division
78.1 59.1 66.5 66.9 57 60.8 70.7 62.7 71 62.7 74.2 59.2 65.4
Milimani Criminal Division
58.3 47.1 54.2 61.1 30 43.3 47.9 47.1 42.5 40.6 68.1 55.3 50.4
Milimani- Employees And Labour Relations Court
79.2 43.8 57.9 63.9 45.4 56.7 65.6 50 56.7 45.8 65.6 56.2 56.1
Milimani Environment &Land Division
62.5 47.2 57.3 58.2 31.5 50 78.6 57.3 55 54.7 74.7 48.4 56.5
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
62
Court/Directorate/Registries
Gene
ral O
pini
on o
f the
Judi
ciary
Sele
ctio
n, R
ecru
itmen
t and
Pr
omot
ion
Prac
tices
Inte
rnal
Com
mun
icatio
n at
the
Judi
ciary
Corp
orat
e Cu
lture
, Tea
m-w
ork
and
orga
nisa
tion
Staf
f Tra
inin
g an
d De
velo
pmen
t
Mot
ivat
ion,
Mor
ale
and
Reco
gniti
on
My
Imm
edia
te S
uper
viso
r
Rem
uner
atio
n an
d Be
nefit
s
Empl
oyee
Rel
atio
ns
Man
agem
ent a
nd Le
ader
ship
Empl
oym
ent E
ngag
emen
t
Wor
k/Li
fe B
alan
ce
Over
all E
mpl
oyee
Sat
isfa
ctio
n In
dex
Milimani Judicial Review Division/Constitutional Court
83.3 57.5 60.4 57.5 42 43.8 52.1 70.1 62 56.6 67.7 67.7 57.2
Mombasa High Court 79.8 65.1 68 65.9 57.9 58.2 68.4 55.3 63.6 60.7 72.2 58.2 63.3
Muranga High Court 76.6 61.8 67.8 60.9 55.9 52.8 62.7 64.3 60.5 60.8 72.4 61.7 62.9
Nairobi Industrial Court 78.8 56.6 67.2 64.1 54.4 55.1 67.5 62.1 72.8 55.8 72.7 62.6 63.2
Nakuru High Court 81.3 67.5 73 68.4 60.7 64.2 74.1 70.9 62.1 63.2 76.6 67.2 68.9
Nyeri High Court 81.3 66.7 77 83.8 86.1 75 84.4 58.3 70 82.8 84.2 69.6 80.6
MAGISTRATE COURTS
Baricho Magistrate Court 79.2 70 71.4 72.6 64.6 67.3 74 55.8 64.6 70.4 77.1 57.6 68.9
Bomet Magistrate Court 76.6 72.5 72.4 72.5 59 70.8 71.3 57.8 66.6 65.6 73.4 62.1 68.5
Bondo Magistrate Court 84.6 68.5 65.9 66.5 59.9 59.2 59.9 55.8 64 60.4 71.5 64.1 64.4
Bungoma Magistrate Court
79.5 69.4 72.4 76 66.8 72.2 73.6 75.1 72.2 70.1 75 73.9 72.5
Busia Magistrate Court 79.7 61.9 71.7 73.8 54.2 65.9 71.4 57 56.2 65 78.1 64.1 67
Butali Magistrate Court 84.7 64.9 77 74.2 70.3 70.1 78.1 60.4 62.8 70.1 79.7 64 72.4
Butere Magistrate Court 78.3 60.1 69.7 63.7 57.1 54.7 61.3 71.5 62.2 58.1 75.3 61 64.3
Chuka Magistrate Court 88.9 56.3 75.7 72.3 65.1 73.9 70.5 71.8 68.9 63.9 83.8 73.4 71.3
Eldama Ravine Magistrate Court
84.4 69.6 74.1 69.3 66.7 74 70.3 64.3 67.7 69 76.3 70.3 70.8
Eldoret Magistrate Court 82.6 60.9 67.3 67.7 53.5 62.5 73.6 62.5 65 62 71.4 59.8 64.8
Engineer Magistrate Court 85.7 61.4 62.9 72.4 53.5 58.8 70.6 67.8 54.6 59.7 70.6 57.1 64.9
Garissa Magistrate Court 80 67.5 74.1 69.7 65 75.5 75.3 70 73.5 67.8 73 72 71.2
Garsen Magistrate Court 78.8 61.8 70.7 75.4 53.7 60 74.1 56.7 67.5 67.5 75.5 63.5 67.3
Gatundu Magistrate Court 78 66.1 68.1 60.9 55.8 57.3 69.1 60.6 55.8 60.2 67.1 62.8 62.8
Gichugu Magistrate Court 81.3 64.8 64.6 67.5 53.2 55 72.7 55.5 54 51.3 64.3 48.3 61.9
Githongo Magistrate Court
85.7 64.6 66.3 74.3 48.4 71.7 91.7 66.1 64.3 68.4 79.6 70.3 71.4
Githunguri Magistrate Court
67 55 57 53.9 43.3 46 56.4 63.4 54.1 57.2 71.8 58.8 57.2
Hamisi Magistrate Court 81.3 68.3 72 75.6 71.5 75.6 77.5 72.3 71.3 71.8 79.6 71.8 74
Hola Magistrate Court 76.8 66.3 75.6 76.5 55.3 68.6 75.9 65.7 66.2 64.7 71.1 62.2 68.2
Homa Bay Magistrate Court
82.1 59.6 66.6 62.6 65.4 52.7 63.3 52.4 58.2 57.3 77.2 55.4 63.1
Isiolo Magistrate Court 84.8 59.3 63.6 64 53.8 65.3 73.9 71.1 70.5 66.8 74.8 61.6 66
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
63
Court/Directorate/Registries
Gene
ral O
pini
on o
f the
Judi
ciary
Sele
ctio
n, R
ecru
itmen
t and
Pr
omot
ion
Prac
tices
Inte
rnal
Com
mun
icatio
n at
the
Judi
ciary
Corp
orat
e Cu
lture
, Tea
m-w
ork
and
orga
nisa
tion
Staf
f Tra
inin
g an
d De
velo
pmen
t
Mot
ivat
ion,
Mor
ale
and
Reco
gniti
on
My
Imm
edia
te S
uper
viso
r
Rem
uner
atio
n an
d Be
nefit
s
Empl
oyee
Rel
atio
ns
Man
agem
ent a
nd Le
ader
ship
Empl
oym
ent E
ngag
emen
t
Wor
k/Li
fe B
alan
ce
Over
all E
mpl
oyee
Sat
isfa
ctio
n In
dex
Iten Magistrate Court 80.8 64 64.2 65.9 60.3 56.5 63.8 63.8 61.9 58.1 72.6 60.9 63.9
Kabarnet Magistrate Court 91.3 77.5 84 83.3 64.9 77 85.1 81.9 80.5 83 87.4 72.9 79.9
Kajiado Magistrate Court 88.8 75.7 79.1 79.5 67.4 67.9 78.8 58.8 73.8 72.5 84.5 68.6 74.8
Kakakmega Magistrate Court
87.5 66.7 75 67.5 55.9 65 68.8 78.6 71.7 69 90.6 68.1 71.8
Kakuma Magistrate Court 75 57.3 65 66.3 62.8 57 66.4 50 56 64.4 69.7 57.9 62.4
Kaloleni Magistrate Court 85.9 65.6 70.9 74.9 61.6 66.3 79.1 60.7 69.3 68.9 74.3 64.8 69.7
Kandara Magistrate Court 77.1 58.3 65.1 74.6 55.3 58.8 70.6 54.8 58.3 62.8 71.4 64.3 64.5
Kangema Magistrate Court
76.8 68.2 71.1 73.3 62.6 63.9 70.8 68.2 71.4 69.6 74.1 68.4 69.6
Kangundo Magistrate Court
86.5 55 67.2 64.6 49.8 51.7 58.4 62.8 68 59.4 70.5 59.8 61.3
Kapenguria Magistrate Court
83.8 64.6 67.3 63.6 52.7 58.2 65.3 63.1 57.9 57.7 76.9 57.8 62.7
Kapsabet Magistrate Court
82.8 66.3 70.2 70.8 62.4 69.7 74.2 63.1 67.5 71.1 78.3 63.4 70.2
Karatina Magistrate Court 82.3 59.4 70.6 65.3 57.1 60 69 57.1 59.2 62 72.3 63.6 64.3
Kehancha Magistrate Court
86.5 69.2 77.5 72.5 69.8 71.5 82.3 57.5 69.6 62 76.3 65.5 71.6
Kericho Magistrate Court 83.3 70 74 75 51.5 62.1 61.5 72.2 84.2 75 75.1 66.7 69.5
Keroka Magistrate Court 81.7 62.3 69.6 73.4 57.5 69.2 71.3 57.1 63.5 62.1 71.3 61 66.2
Kerugoya Magistrate Court
81.3 57.5 69.6 71.6 56.3 75 68.8 50 75 68.8 75 70.8 72.2
Kiambu Magistrate Court 75.7 60 64.7 63.9 48.3 58.8 72 66 57.5 59.3 74.3 65.4 63.9
Kibera Magistrate Court 89.1 69 72 76.2 65.8 67.5 78.7 60 74.9 79.8 84.1 64.1 73.3
Kigumo Magistrate Court 86.7 70.8 79.6 82.3 60.3 72.4 79.2 66.8 73.8 76 80.9 64.4 74.4
Kikuyu Magistrate Court 81.3 76.9 74.2 68.9 66.3 70.6 78.8 71.4 72 74.3 79.1 71.4 73.3
Kilgoris Magistrate Court 74.4 60.8 61 64.2 52.4 57 65.3 51.4 59.3 59.2 70.3 56.8 60.5
Kilifi Magistrate Court 75 68.2 73.1 68.9 59.4 63.8 70.1 63.9 65.4 64.8 70.8 65.1 66.5
Kilungu Nunguni Magistrate Court
87.5 47.1 61.5 78.9 59.6 75 78.6 72 77.1 72.7 81 71.2 72.7
Kimilili Magistrate Court 83.3 68.3 55.2 59 36.1 47.9 79.2 68.1 41.7 41.7 54.4 52.4 56
Kisii Magistrate Court 85 51 63.8 65 55.6 66 70 56.3 53.5 54.4 75.4 53.6 62.9
Kisumu Magistrate Court 85 59 65.8 69.1 65.8 63.2 60.6 56.8 65.9 61.7 77.5 59.8 66
Kitale Magistrate Court 82.3 68.2 72.6 69.2 61.1 64.5 66.4 63.3 69.4 60.9 74.1 59.5 66.8
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
64
Court/Directorate/Registries
Gene
ral O
pini
on o
f the
Judi
ciary
Sele
ctio
n, R
ecru
itmen
t and
Pr
omot
ion
Prac
tices
Inte
rnal
Com
mun
icatio
n at
the
Judi
ciary
Corp
orat
e Cu
lture
, Tea
m-w
ork
and
orga
nisa
tion
Staf
f Tra
inin
g an
d De
velo
pmen
t
Mot
ivat
ion,
Mor
ale
and
Reco
gniti
on
My
Imm
edia
te S
uper
viso
r
Rem
uner
atio
n an
d Be
nefit
s
Empl
oyee
Rel
atio
ns
Man
agem
ent a
nd Le
ader
ship
Empl
oym
ent E
ngag
emen
t
Wor
k/Li
fe B
alan
ce
Over
all E
mpl
oyee
Sat
isfa
ctio
n In
dex
Kithimani Magistrate Court
81.3 75.9 76 74 64.6 68.8 71.9 68.2 68.3 66.3 79.6 69.2 71.9
Kitui Magistrate Court 77.5 67.5 70.3 66.7 65 49 66.1 52.1 56.3 60.6 69.6 59.6 64.2
Kwale Magistrate Court 78.3 66 75.9 73.7 55.6 66 73.5 68.6 69.6 67 74.9 66.8 69.4
Kyuso Magistrate Court 96.9 70.7 70 74.2 53.5 51 74.2 40.8 72.3 84.3 83.2 47.4 66
Lamu Magistrate Court 79.7 52.9 69.6 66.2 56.1 69.6 68.4 63.1 50.9 58.1 73.1 58.5 64.3
Limuru Magistrate Court 82.5 57.5 73.3 71.8 59.8 65.6 73.4 57.6 63.3 65.7 71.6 58.4 66.6
Lodwar Magistrate Court 75 56.3 51.3 53.3 56.1 43 45.6 49.2 49 40.6 62.5 56.4 52.9
Machakos Magistrate Court
82.5 59.1 70.2 67.7 55.9 66 72.5 69.3 67.7 64.8 74.8 64.2 67
Makadara Magistrate Court
83.6 62.9 64.6 68.2 54.9 57.7 62.6 59.8 63.8 61.1 78.9 67.3 65.3
Makindu Magistrate Court 80.7 64.3 74.5 69.7 61.4 59.8 71.9 61.8 66.5 65.2 74.5 58.6 66.9
Makueni Magistrate Court 79.7 67.3 67.5 63.4 66.4 60.5 61.5 62 60 56.7 71.2 70.1 65.1
Malindi Magistrate Court 81.3 60.8 71.2 67.9 44.5 57.5 72.7 65 72.5 60.9 77.4 60.3 64.8
Mandera Magistrate Court 91.1 67.1 69.9 74.7 69 75.7 74.1 70.2 66.1 72.3 75.2 68 72
Maralal Magistrate Court 86.3 69 79.9 82.3 74.8 75.9 82.2 78.8 73.9 81.3 84.9 70.1 78.6
Mariakani Magistrate Court
83.3 69.8 74 76.9 61.7 66.1 80.4 62.2 68.8 74.1 78.5 60.6 71.4
Marimanti Magistrate Court
83.3 59.4 77.4 72.3 58.2 60 70.9 64.5 72.8 69.2 82.6 59.1 69.4
Marsabit Magistrate Court 90.6 73.4 81.3 84 68.6 78.1 71.9 69.8 75.9 74.7 81 71.1 76.8
Maseno Magistrate Court 79.2 61.1 66.5 62.9 55.1 61.3 64.1 62.9 67.2 63.4 73.5 66.2 64.2
Maua Magistrate Court 80.4 57.7 62.9 67.8 56.9 58.9 68.1 54.9 62.5 59.6 70.9 55.4 64
Mavoko Magistrate Court 73.4 70.2 73.9 69.4 63.9 60.2 82 56.6 71.9 69.7 76.5 59.6 69.1
Mbita Magistrate Court 85 53 69.4 72.8 63.4 59 72.5 67 66 72 74.6 64.1 67.9
Meru Magistrate Court 78.1 70.9 67.4 68.5 59.6 55.9 68.8 67 60 64 72.1 58.3 67.2
Migori Magistrate Court 76.6 61.6 66.6 67.8 52.8 61.4 69 60.8 60.3 61.5 72.3 61.2 64.3
Milimani Anti-Corruption Court
79.2 75 78.3 70.1 49.3 68.3 77.1 63.2 66.7 68.3 79.2 68.5 70.2
Milimani Commercial 90 65.3 72.5 63.8 56.1 50 75.8 69.7 67 58.8 81.2 64.3 66.8
Milimani Magistrate Court 84.4 63.5 63.1 76.4 53.7 64 71.9 54.2 61.3 64.8 75.9 70.1 66.9
Mlimani Children’s Court 87.5 61.8 66.6 72 56.6 65 81.9 67.3 60 60.6 78.5 76.4 69.1
Molo Magistrate Court 78.8 57.6 63.7 66.4 55.5 61.3 69.2 64.4 57.9 63.9 74.5 66.6 65.1
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
65
Court/Directorate/Registries
Gene
ral O
pini
on o
f the
Judi
ciary
Sele
ctio
n, R
ecru
itmen
t and
Pr
omot
ion
Prac
tices
Inte
rnal
Com
mun
icatio
n at
the
Judi
ciary
Corp
orat
e Cu
lture
, Tea
m-w
ork
and
orga
nisa
tion
Staf
f Tra
inin
g an
d De
velo
pmen
t
Mot
ivat
ion,
Mor
ale
and
Reco
gniti
on
My
Imm
edia
te S
uper
viso
r
Rem
uner
atio
n an
d Be
nefit
s
Empl
oyee
Rel
atio
ns
Man
agem
ent a
nd Le
ader
ship
Empl
oym
ent E
ngag
emen
t
Wor
k/Li
fe B
alan
ce
Over
all E
mpl
oyee
Sat
isfa
ctio
n In
dex
Mombasa Magistrate Court
83.8 59.2 68.1 72.2 55.1 61 69.7 62.3 66.3 64.6 71.4 60.2 65.2
Moyale Magistrate Court 85.7 65.7 75.9 68.8 73.2 67.1 79.9 64.3 66.1 75 80.6 67.2 72.9
Mukurwe-ini Magistrate Court
75 60.4 64.9 61.6 53.8 52 60.6 64.2 55.7 61.7 72 60.3 61.4
Mumias Magistrate Court 82.1 58 68.4 67.6 57.5 61.1 64.9 57.3 58.5 58.4 74 58.4 63.7
Muranga Magistrate Court 81.3 62.4 67.8 61.5 52.8 57.5 60.5 63 56 59.4 72.6 60.1 61.4
Mutumo Magistrate Court 78.1 54.8 66.8 73 45.2 50.6 76 43.6 43 62.6 73.9 56 62.2
Mwingi Magistrate Court 84.4 70.7 67.2 68.8 63.7 62.8 62.2 67.3 65.6 59.4 74.4 62.2 66.3
Nairobi City Court 75 69.5 74.1 71.4 60.1 64.3 78.6 61.6 59.2 65.3 74.5 62.6 67.9
Naivasha Magistrate Court 68.8 61.5 71.1 73.2 62.7 65.9 70.5 57.1 62.4 62.1 75.9 59.5 66.9
Nakuru Magistrate Court 84.4 65.6 68.8 65.6 68.1 72.5 83.5 67.7 57.5 72.7 83.9 67.9 71.5
Nanyuki Magistrate Court 75.9 62.7 60.2 59.4 51.4 55.4 63.9 60.8 58.2 59.4 63.6 49.5 60.6
Narok Magistrate Court 81.3 68.6 70.6 73.5 62.1 55 52.1 58.1 50 59.4 68.9 47.6 70
Ndhiwa Magistrate Court 85.8 70.6 74.9 76.4 65.2 70.3 75.7 66 72.8 73.8 82 67.9 73.6
Nkubu Magistrate Court 82.3 60.8 70.3 66.4 61.3 62.3 64.9 65.1 69.2 60.8 72.8 63.1 65.4
Nyahururu Magistrate Court
82.5 66 67.7 70.6 62.5 64.5 68.5 65.5 64.3 66.5 75.2 58.3 67.3
Nyamira Magistrate Court 83.7 67.1 68 68.2 58.5 65.8 69.6 63.1 61 61.7 76.4 66.3 67.2
Nyando Magistrate Court 86.8 73.5 76.7 74.8 68.1 66.9 76.5 67.3 77.8 72.3 78.1 66.6 73
Nyeri Magistrate Court 77.5 57.3 67.5 71.1 55.9 57.5 59 56.7 68.5 63.5 78.4 66.7 65
Ogembo Magistrate Court 80.6 48.1 62.3 70.4 56.3 63 78.3 44.8 45.5 57.8 69.2 55.9 61.9
Othaya Magistrate Court 72.5 60.3 71.9 60.4 56.7 50 65.6 53.2 69 56 72.2 57.8 61.7
Oyugis Magistrate Court 90.2 73.8 78.7 81.8 69.5 76.1 86.7 73.5 76.8 75.7 80.3 71.1 77.5
Rongo Magistrate Court 85.7 71.6 75.7 75.6 62.3 66.3 62.5 58.2 67.3 71.4 81.2 68.5 71.2
Shanzu Magistrate Court 78.6 61.3 69.9 58.6 58.9 48 59.1 57.1 56 57.1 61.9 57.6 59.7
Siakago Magistrate Court 75 58.9 71.3 70.9 58.6 60.4 64.8 66.7 70.9 67.7 79.1 70.6 68.6
Siaya Magistrate Court 89.6 68 81 76.6 63.4 70.8 85.4 75 65.3 65.9 84.2 69.7 74.8
Sirisia Magistrate Court 84.4 71.3 73.5 77.5 70.8 67.9 73.9 63.5 70.5 64.6 80.1 67.5 71.9
Sotik Magistrate Court 79.2 66.5 69.7 69.3 62.5 62.5 69.5 55 66.4 59.9 73 61.4 66.1
Tamu Magistrate Court 92.5 58.6 76.9 76.8 62 59.5 68.1 61.3 62.1 71.6 85.4 68.6 70.7
Taveta Magistrate Court 75 69.8 78.1 66.7 51.6 66 64.4 65.3 66.5 64.8 69.2 67.6 65.8
Tawa Magistrate Court 85.2 63.6 76.7 71.2 60.3 71.5 67.5 61.6 69.8 64.7 82.1 71 70.5
Thika Magistrate Court 77.3 56.3 63.5 62.4 45.9 52.1 66.5 62.2 54.4 52.6 67.8 63.4 59.6
Tigania Magistrate Court 80.8 55.7 64 66.9 60.2 57.1 70.3 56.6 62.3 59.5 69.4 57.2 62.4
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
66
Court/Directorate/Registries
Gene
ral O
pini
on o
f the
Judi
ciary
Sele
ctio
n, R
ecru
itmen
t and
Pr
omot
ion
Prac
tices
Inte
rnal
Com
mun
icatio
n at
the
Judi
ciary
Corp
orat
e Cu
lture
, Tea
m-w
ork
and
orga
nisa
tion
Staf
f Tra
inin
g an
d De
velo
pmen
t
Mot
ivat
ion,
Mor
ale
and
Reco
gniti
on
My
Imm
edia
te S
uper
viso
r
Rem
uner
atio
n an
d Be
nefit
s
Empl
oyee
Rel
atio
ns
Man
agem
ent a
nd Le
ader
ship
Empl
oym
ent E
ngag
emen
t
Wor
k/Li
fe B
alan
ce
Over
all E
mpl
oyee
Sat
isfa
ctio
n In
dex
Tononoka Magistrate Court
78.1 72.5 71.4 74 78.9 75.3 73.9 57.9 75 75 76.4 56.1 70.3
Ukwala Magistrate Court 90.4 71.6 76.9 78.3 69.6 70.1 80.5 59.2 74.7 70.2 87.6 65.2 74.7
Vihiga Magistrate Court 76.8 54.6 68.8 65.1 51.9 57.9 66.1 64.7 61 64.7 71.9 65 64
Voi Magistrate Court 85.2 65.9 77.3 75.9 63.9 72.2 73.1 70.1 67 71.1 77.5 61.7 71.4
Wajir Magistrate Court 86.7 63.4 76.4 75.6 65.2 77.8 85.2 73.5 69.5 77.9 84.4 69.2 76
Wanguru Magistrate Court
80 64.4 67.4 65.8 61.6 57.8 70.4 56.8 67.9 64 74.6 63.7 65.7
Webuye Magistrate Court 74.2 61.3 68.9 67.8 60.3 62 65.6 54 70.3 60.8 73.9 67.7 65.2
Winam Magistrate Court 77.5 60.1 66.7 67.1 59 55.8 63.4 62.8 56.5 61.1 74.5 65 64.2
Wundanyi Magistrate Court
84.7 59.6 71.2 71.3 65.6 72.8 75.5 61.7 74 70.5 76.6 63.1 69.9
KADHI COURTS
Garissa Kadhi Court 75 50 93.8 45.8 40 40 56.3 41.7 65 50 75 67.9 56.6
Kilifi Kadhi Court 75 55 78.1 63.6 63.9 58.3 71.9 50 50 70.8 73.3 60 65.5
Kisumu Kadhi Court 87.5 79 73.8 72 62.9 69 74.4 68.5 55 70.5 81.8 62.5 70.6
Kitale Kadhi Court 87.5 70 75 70.8 60 55 65.6 60 75 75 75 60.7 67.8
Kwale Kadhi Court 62.5 53.8 62.5 58.2 66.3 54.2 65.6 44.2 55 57.8 72.4 54 60.5
Machakos Kadhi Court 87.5 65 73 80.9 78.8 80 68.8 81.3 75 65.6 82.8 75 75.2
Malindi Kadhi Court 81.3 68.8 81.3 82.3 76.3 91.3 81.3 77.1 75 76.6 84.4 69.3 78.8
Mombasa Kadhi Court 78.1 65.6 69.1 67 70.6 65.3 68 65.1 63.8 66.4 79.9 72.5 70.1
Nairobi Kadhi Court 83.3 57.5 68.7 66.6 54.3 55.7 67.2 64 61.1 67.6 74.7 64 65.3
Thika Kadhi Court 62.5 43.3 40.6 42.4 37.9 38.3 65.3 43.1 45.8 43.8 45 43.6 44.7
Voi Kadhi Court 81.3 67.5 87.5 78.1 81.3 60 85.9 65 75 65.6 85.7 62.8 76.7
Wajir Kadhi Court 75 80 81.3 75 87.5 100 100 100 100 81.3 98.4 100 90.8
OFFICES/DIRECTORATES/TRIBUNALS
Directorate - Accounts 75 57.5 59.4 56.5 44.3 48.5 61.6 62.1 56.5 49.9 66.8 48.8 56.1
Directorate - Finance 71.4 45.2 58.4 57.9 43.5 58.4 70.9 52.9 59.2 52.1 64.5 52.2 56.2
Directorate - Human Resource & Administration
82.1 64.9 62.4 63.8 55.2 58.5 63.9 65.3 63.9 64.2 75.6 63.9 64.1
Directorate - ICT 87.5 61.7 65.2 71.8 59 67 83.4 62.2 63.6 72.7 85.3 65.4 70.9
Directorate - Performance Management
88.5 65.9 62 62.2 52 58.3 77.9 66.5 67.2 62.6 68.3 65.3 64.5
Directorate - Public Affairs & Communication
76.6 64.5 68.4 71.9 51.2 64.8 78.1 70.6 67.1 67.6 72.3 59.9 67.2
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
67
Court/Directorate/Registries
Gene
ral O
pini
on o
f the
Judi
ciary
Sele
ctio
n, R
ecru
itmen
t and
Pr
omot
ion
Prac
tices
Inte
rnal
Com
mun
icatio
n at
the
Judi
ciary
Corp
orat
e Cu
lture
, Tea
m-w
ork
and
orga
nisa
tion
Staf
f Tra
inin
g an
d De
velo
pmen
t
Mot
ivat
ion,
Mor
ale
and
Reco
gniti
on
My
Imm
edia
te S
uper
viso
r
Rem
uner
atio
n an
d Be
nefit
s
Empl
oyee
Rel
atio
ns
Man
agem
ent a
nd Le
ader
ship
Empl
oym
ent E
ngag
emen
t
Wor
k/Li
fe B
alan
ce
Over
all E
mpl
oyee
Sat
isfa
ctio
n In
dex
Directorate - Supplies Chain Management Services
83.9 64.3 56.6 58 48.6 52.9 59.8 59.5 48.6 48.1 61.9 58.1 56.6
Head Quarter Office of The Superintendent
75 60 60.7 62.5 52.8 70 75 60 70 59.4 70.3 64.3 63.8
Headquarter Library Services
77.1 69.5 67.2 71.3 56.9 56 77.8 69 81.5 65.2 81.8 73.1 70.9
Judicial Service Commission (Secretariat)
62.5 55 40.6 52.1 25 55 78.6 66.7 41.7 40.6 50 50 48.4
Milimani Auctioneers Board
50 65.6 75 70.8 51.4 70 82.8 66.9 50 66.1 76.7 62.5 68.7
Office of the Chief Justice 68.8 51.3 49 59.4 56.3 57.8 68.8 39.8 66.3 60.2 73.4 58.9 59.6
Office of the Chief Registrar of Judiciary
75 75 62.5 68.8 60.6 71.3 75.8 64.6 67.5 74.2 77.7 60.7 69.3
Office of the Deputy Chief Justice
87.5 30 71.4 87.5 87.5 90 100 25 65 93.8 100 96.4 78.9
Office of the Ombudsman 77.5 47.8 55.8 66.3 54.1 61 81.4 62.2 46 54.8 71.8 52.7 61
Office of the Principal Judge - High Court
50 75 75 68.8 52.8 68.8 84.4 65 50 64.3 76.7 62.5 68.6
Office of the Registrar - High Court
90.6 46.3 47.7 58.6 45.2 52.5 57.1 44.2 75.6 51.6 77.3 55.4 57.7
Office of the Registrar - The Subordinate Court
81.3 60 70.3 70.6 51.3 63.8 78.9 76.9 65 60.2 82.4 68.8 68.3
Public Parties Tribunal 75 55 60.7 52.1 40 0 56.3 45.8 70 50 67.5 50 56.2
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
68
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
69
Customer, Employee Satisfaction and Work Environment Survey Report
70
Chief Registrar of the Judiciary, Supreme Court Building, City Walk, NairobiP.O. Box 30041 – 00100, Nairobi
Tel. +254 20 [email protected]
Website http://www.judiciary.go.ke