It was a great honour to serve as the inaugural legal researchers for the indefatigable, energetic, and exceptionally intelligent Justice David Majanja beginning in 2012 in the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court.

This period was particularly significant for Kenya as it transitioned to a decentralised system of governance after decades of centralism.

Justice Majanja joined the bench at a pivotal moment, just before the first General Election in March 2013, under a new Constitution. This period marked the beginning of the new devolved system of governance, bringing a mix of excitement and challenges as the country embarked on a fresh constitutional journey.

Justice Majanja, alongside Justice Mumbi Ngugi and Justice Isaac Lenaola (now justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, respectively), formed an intellectual powerhouse in the Constitutional and Human Rights Division. The new Constitution’s Bill of Rights provisions required careful interpretation and clarification, opening floodgates for numerous cases in the High Court in Milimani.

Justice Majanja and his colleagues meticulously clarified the division’s jurisdiction, emphasising that it was not a supervisory body over other High Court divisions or specialised courts. He often dismissed cases seeking to appeal decisions from courts of equal status, describing them as “collateral attacks”.

Between 2012 and 2013, Kenya faced numerous significant legal challenges, including drawing boundaries and election-related disputes. A five-judge bench, with Justice Majanja as vice-chair, heard 147 cases challenging the IEBC’s constituency and ward boundaries. He coordinated the team, ensuring the timely resolution of disputes. The bench resolved the delimitation dispute within the three-month legal requirement, with only one appeal against their decision.

Justice Majanja also played a pivotal role in interpreting the election date for the 2013 elections, showcasing his remarkable judicial acumen. He did not shy away from the unbeaten path, such as duty to provide reasonable accommodation for the disabled in employment (the Paul Pkiach Anupa case) and the Wilson Siringi case that upheld the legal capacity of persons with mental illness to consent in line with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Justice Majanja’s exceptional court management skills contributed to speedy conclusion of cases. His diligent approach was evident as he arrived early each day thoroughly prepared. He actively engaged in hearings adeptly directing counsel to focus on specific issues, hence avoiding unnecessary lengthy submissions. His profound grasp of the law and emerging jurisprudence demanded thorough preparation from advocates appearing before him. Researchers had to stay perpetually alert, constantly delivering relevant authorities on short notice, reflecting the Justice Majanja’s rigorous standards.

Justice Majanja embodied the wisdom of Pablo Picasso: “Only put off until tomorrow what you are willing to die having left undone.” After hearing parties in an application, he often paused, wrote his ruling within minutes, and delivered it promptly. His efficiency ensured litigants often left his court with a complete set of documents – the judgment or ruling and proceedings – on the same day. His ability to type many of his proceedings and judgments contributed significantly to the speedy resolution of cases and the clearing of backlogs.

Justice Majanja was meticulous about maintaining transparency and integrity, often ensuring his chambers’ door remained open during visits. Despite his stern demeanour, he was introspective and empathetic, as seen when he once questioned whether he was fair after a litigant broke down in court.

May he rest in eternal peace.

— The writers are advocates of the High Court and part of the inaugural cohort of legal researchers in the Judiciary.