Executive Summary and introduction - Kenya Law: Home Page



center-505794right-417563left-474133Guidelines on Uniform Citation System for Kenyan Legal AuthoritiesSubmitted by:Christopher KerkeringExternal Consultant for the International Development Law OrganizationNairobi, KenyaTable of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Part 1: Executive Summary and introduction PAGEREF _Toc514427483 \h 11.1Purpose of the Report PAGEREF _Toc514427484 \h 11.2Kenya Law and Online Access to Legal Information PAGEREF _Toc514427485 \h 1Part 2: Preliminary Findings PAGEREF _Toc514427486 \h 32.1Uniform Citations Systems: Introduction and Analysis PAGEREF _Toc514427487 \h 32.2Uniform Citation Systems Under eKLR PAGEREF _Toc514427488 \h 42.3A Uniform System of Citation: Ways Forward PAGEREF _Toc514427489 \h 72.4Citation Systems and Quick Access to Information PAGEREF _Toc514427490 \h 9Part 3: Recommendations for Citing Kenyan Legal Authorities PAGEREF _Toc514427491 \h 103.1Kenyan Case Law PAGEREF _Toc514427492 \h 103.2Kenyan Legislation PAGEREF _Toc514427493 \h 153.3Senate or National Assembly Bills PAGEREF _Toc514427494 \h 163.4Legal Notices and Regulations PAGEREF _Toc514427495 \h 173.5County Legislation PAGEREF _Toc514427496 \h 173.6Gazette Notices PAGEREF _Toc514427497 \h 183.7Secondary Sources PAGEREF _Toc514427498 \h 18Part 4: Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc514427499 \h 21Executive Summary and introductionPurpose of the ReportThis report explains why a uniform system of citations is necessary for the development of Kenyan jurisprudence and discusses potential citation models for Kenya Law and the Judiciary to consider. It is vital that thisreportby reviewed by representatives from the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law), the Judiciary, the Law Society of Kenya and other stakeholders to ensure that it accurately reflects the needs of these organisations and groups.Kenya Law and Online Access to Legal InformationKenya Law has a statutory mandate under the National Council for Law Reporting Act, 1994 and the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Legal Notice 29 of 2009 to:To monitor and report on the development of Kenya’s jurisprudence through the publication of the Kenya Law Reports;To revise, consolidate and publish the Laws of Kenya; andTo undertake such other related publications and perform such other functions as may be conferred by law.As part of its mandate to publish the Kenya Law Reports and disseminate legal information to the public, Kenya Law has established a website, commonly referred to as eKLR. Since its launch, eKLR has grown to become the primary source for Kenyan legal information, including case law, statutes, legislative information, and select publications that are of particular interest to the public. It has become the primary platform for judges, judicial clerks, and scholars looking to research and analyse Kenyan law.As is the case in many jurisdictions, eKLR has supplanted the historical print publications of the Kenya Law Reports and related material. This is not surprising. Given the rapid changes to Kenyan law since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution, print publications are often outdated even at the time of release. Moreover, they are expensive to produce and inaccessible to the majority of the population. eKLR has proven to be a better platform for Kenya Law to fulfil its mandate.The transformation to the internet as the defacto source of Kenyan legal information, however, has required eKLR to change rapidly to fit the demands of its users. Over the years, it has streamlined its search functions, expanded its case database to include cases published years before the launch of the site, and added previous versions of the amended statutory law.It has become standard practice in the judiciary, and among lawyers, to refer to case law by citing eKLR. These citations included references to the name of the case, the year in which the document was published, and general reference to eKLR. As eKLR has become the standard reporting source and case law under the 2010 Constitution has grown, however, there has been an increased interest in developing a uniform system of citation that provides research and readers with a standard citation form and allows quick and accurate access to the information contained on the website. Should the Kenyan Judiciary decide to implement a uniform system of citation, Kenya Law is in the best position to develop that system. Moreover, the benefits of a uniform citation system fit squarely within Kenya Law’s statutory mandate as well as its vision for ‘Accessible Public Legal Information towards and Enlightened Society’.The Judiciary must first determine the standard citation system to be implemented by Kenya Law. In addition, both Kenya Law and the Judiciary should seek input from the legal community to ensure that the practice is understood and adopted by practitioners.Preliminary FindingsUniform Citations Systems: Introduction and AnalysisThe aim of a system for citing legal authorities is relatively straightforward: ‘a simple and practically costless way to point at the source that provides authority for your claim’. Unfortunately, the idea of a simple and efficient method to ensure that legal arguments are backed by legal authority has become more complicated than it need be. There are now hundreds of citation systems developed by different jurisdictions, universities, and publishing houses. Each of these developers purports to have the most efficient and straightforward way of citing authority, but the very process of developing a more superior citation system only confuses the efforts. The numerous citation methods do the opposite of the intended goal. Instead of being costless and straightforward, they are convoluted and a waste of precious time and resources. Perhaps the most egregious example of a citation system devolving into a convoluted process is the Bluebook, which is the most common citation system in the United States. As Prof Lawrence Lessig complained, the ‘Bluebook is a brilliant embarrassment. Hundreds of pages long, with thousands of abbreviations, and convoluted rules specifying, among other things, typeface variations.’ The Bluebook system ‘seems designed to punish’ rather than provide an efficient and accurate method for identifying the authority to support a advocate’s or judge’s arguments.The Bluebook and other systems of citation require different detailed rules to achieve the same goals: clarity, efficiency, transparency, and accuracy. Often, the established rules do not provide a better system and, instead, reflect a stylistic preference—a vanity project to distinguish one publication, one jurisdiction, or one journal from another. Despite these complications, a citation system is essential. The law is based on precedent. For lawyers to craft their arguments and for judges to reach well-informed decisions, they must be able to access, analyse, and cite legal authority. A uniform citation system ensures that lawyers have adequately identified the authority they are presenting to the court, gives the court a reference that it can use to find the authority quickly, and ensures that the judges understand what that authority says and how it is to be used. Without a uniform system of citation, it is much easier to misquote or misrepresent authorities and much harder for the judiciary to ensure that authorities are being used appropriately. The reliance on president, transparency, and the quality of legal arguments suffer. In short, without a uniform system of citation, jurisprudence suffers.With the onset of digital and online resources, the need for a uniform and accurate citation system prevails, yet the multitude of resources has expanded the types of citations methods and has increased the tendency for advocates to provide less accurate citations. Uniform Citation Systems Under eKLRHaving established the importance of a uniform system of citation, this next section addresses the added difficulties—and opportunities—presented by an online legal environment. The shift to online legal databases has transformed the way that repositories of legal information store their data, the manner in which legal practitioners conduct research, and the methods by which digital sources, as opposed to print sources, are cited. This transformation is evident in the development of jurisprudence by the Kenyan Courts following the implementation of the 2010 Constitution. As the most relevant sources for research and analysis have shifted to online databases, the Kenyan Courts have similarly shifted their citation methods. A typical, pre-electronic case citation from the Kenyan Judiciary looked like this: Speaker of National Assembly v Karume [1992] KLR 21 Now, Kenyan courts have largely eschewed the use of print citations, in part because print citations are either not available, are difficult to access, or do not reflect the rapid change caused by the Constitutional transformation. Equally as important, Kenya Law has done an impressive job of ensuring that many of the cases that were previously published in the print version of the Kenya Law Reports are now digitised and available online.The digitisation of case law that was previously only available in print is an excellent and essential step in increasing accessibility and developing jurisprudence. Yet, it has also created another example of how one case may be cited in multiple ways. For example, the case mentioned above, Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume, is available not just through the print version of the Kenya Law Reports, but as an electronic version through eKLR. The eKLR citation is:Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume [1992] eKLRThe eKLR citation is now relied upon by the Judiciary as a reference as much, if not more than, the print KLR cite. For example, the following cases use the eKLR cite of Karume and not the KLR print cite. Republic v George Ndung’u Koimburi & 2 Others Ex Parte Alice Njogu &Another [2017] eKLR [3]Republic v George Ndung’u Koimburi & 2 Others Ex Parte Alice Njogu &Another [2017] eKLR [6]Secretary, County Public Service Board &Another v Hulbhai Gedi Abdille [2017] eKLRThere are several reasons that courts and advocates have turned to the online version of cases. First, the most recent print publication of Kenya Law Reports only includes cases through 2010. As a result, the vast majority of cases that discuss the 2010 Constitution are not available in an official print format. Second, eKLR makes it more straightforward to conduct research online by using simple word searches that narrow the search results to a particular phrase, a specific issue, a specific judge, a specific court, or various other search terms. Third, citation to eKLR represents a common platform that advocates and judges know is available to anyone with an internet connection; whereas the Kenya Law Reports is only available to those who have been able to make a significant investment in the books, or can access them through a library.Yet, eKLR is not perfect and lacks one crucial advantage of the print versions of case law. Unlike eKLR, the KLR cite identifies not just the date the decision was made, but the page number on which the case can be found. For example, the KLR cite to Karume refers to the page number, 21, on which the case begins. If a researcher has a hard copy of KLR for the year 1992, she can quickly flip to the proper page and start reading.For eKLR users, however, there is no ability to ‘flip’ to the proper page, since on-line databases are not organised in that way. There are no pages, but rather a transformation of ones and zeros. As a result, electronic databases require searches based on other uniquely identifying information, such as the case name or docket number. Often, however, the case name is not sufficient to accurately identify a case in an online database. This occurs because some litigants have filed many cases and some cases have similarly named litigants. For example, a frequent litigant, Okiya Omtatah Okoiti has many cases, often within the same year. If researchers use the advanced search tab under eKLR to find a decision issued in 2017 in which Okiya OmtatahOkoiti is a named plaintiff, they will find three separate cases. A search for decisions from 2016 will result in 6 cases.If researchers use the general, less precise, search option on eKLR for ‘Okiya Omtatah Okoiti’, the situation becomes even more difficult. This search yields approximately 70 results and would require researchers to do significantly more work to identify the specific case they were looking for. There, of course, are other more precise was to search. Using the case number will result in a more precise search if a research usesthe advanced search option in eKLR that allows her to search for a specific case number. If, for example, researchers search for ‘Civil Appeal 202 of 2015’, as an advanced search, they will receive a single hit: Secretary, County Public Service Board & Another v Hulbhai Gedi Abdille [2017] EKLR. If, however, researchers search just for ‘202 of 2015’ they receive 13 hits. And, if researchers use the general search option (as opposed to the advanced search option) for ‘202 of 2015’ they also receive 13 hits. Often, however, the docket number itself will not be sufficient to identify a particular case. This is especially true when a single case produces more than one decision. The 2017 Presidential Election petition provides a perfect example. All of the roughly 14 rulings made by the Supreme Court for the August 2017 election petition have the same docket number. The names, at times, vary, but a general reference to the docket number alone will not narrow down the search. As a result, neither the docket number nor the party names for some of the most important election decisions in the country would help narrow down which case has been referred to. For the most advanced legal researchers, these problems are only minor obstacles. Those willing to understand search operators or to narrowly tailor their search to identify the most specific information can use eKLR with ease. Unfortunately, most users—even judges and advocates—do not narrowly tailor their search and do not rely on the advanced search operators. They search like they would search on google—by free-typing the terms they wanted and looking at the top few references produced. Practically speaking, most users who wanted a specific Presidential election ruling would type in ‘raila odinga v iebc 2017’. That search, however, would yield more than 100 results. Similar problems arise with other well-known or oft-cited cases. In fact, the more commonly cited a case is, the more hits result from a general search and, hence, the more difficult it is for the average user to find that specific case on the eKLR website. A Uniform System of Citation: Ways ForwardFortunately, a digital citation system is incredibly flexible and, given the skill and dedication of those at Kenya Law, minor adjustments to the eKLR database can address these problems. One of the best way to ensure accurate, efficient citation is to make sure that each decision or ruling that is published on eKLR has its own, unique identifier. This identifier should not rely on the name of the case or the case number, but rather include a reference to the year in which the case was decided, a reference to the Kenya Law Reports as the database, and a specific numerical reference that is unique to that specific case. The 2013 presidential election petition provides an excellent example of how a unique identifier would work. The following citations, although nearly identical, refer to two different court decisions.Raila Odinga & 5 Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others [2013] eKLRRaila Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others [2013] eKLRThese are two different cases. The first was decided on 16 April 2013 and the second was decided on 30 April 2013. Yet, the citationshave only one minor difference: there are six petitioners in the first case and three in the second. A keen eye would recognize that difference only by noticing that the first case has a 5 following ‘Odinga’ whereas the second case has a 2. Most of us do not have such a keen eye. For all practical purposes, these citations do not distinguish between the Supreme Court’s two 2013 election rulings. If, however, each was given a unique identifying number, users of eKLR would have a much easier time searching for a specific case and would be much less likely to confuse the two. An example of a unique identifying number may be as simple as a number at the end of the citation. Using the cases above, an example of a unique identifier is in bold:Raila Odinga & 5 Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others [2013] eKLR1Raila Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others [2013] eKLR2The numbers in bold help judges and advocates correctly identify the case they are referring to. If, for example, an advocate relied on the 16 April 2013 decision as legal authority, it would use the citation: Raila Odinga & 5 Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others [2013] eKLR 1. The court, in turn, would be able to search for the specific citation, [2013] eKLR 1, and be able to find the cited authority without confusing it with the 30 April 2013 case.Citation Systems and Quick Access to InformationA uniform system of citation, however, does more than just make citing authority more efficient and reliable, it also provides the reader with necessary information about the case cited. For example, citation systems can, and should, also include information about the court that issued the decision. As legal practitioners understand, when determining the weight of a court decision, it is important to know which court the decision came from. In Kenya, a Supreme Court decision carries greater precedential weight than a Court of Appeal decision and a Court of Appeal decision, in turn, has greater precedential weight than a High Court decision. Similarly, it may be necessary for the reader to know whether a case came from the Commercial Courts, the Constitutional Court, or other division of the High Court. In developing a uniform citation system, the judiciary and Kenya Law should consider which information would be most important for the reader to know merely by looking at the citation.After reviewing dozens of citation systems, including those in South Africa, Canada, Uganda, India, the United States, and the Bahamas, we concluded that the best citation system would include the following: Case Name – the names of the litigants;Year Reported – the year the case was uploaded onto eKLR;Reporter – in this case, eKLR;Sequential Number – a unique identifying number that distinguishes one case from the others uploaded onto eKLR in a given year; Issuing Court – the Court that has rendered the judgment;Court Division (in High Court Cases) — to distinguish cases from specific substantive jurisdictions of the High Court;Pinpoint Reference (optional) – a reference to a particular paragraph or page of a judgment.The pinpoint reference is optional because it would only be necessary if a litigant were referring to a specific paragraph or page number within a case. If the litigant were listing the case in a bibliography or citing to the case generally, the pinpoint reference would not be needed. Recommendations for Citing Kenyan LegalAuthoritiesKenyan Case LawThe information listed above is included in nearly all citation systems. However, as discussed earlier, many jurisdictions require different formulas for how the citation should appear. There are, quite literally, hundreds of different citation systems required by various jurisdictions, journals, and publishers. Each of the elements in a citation can be listed in any specific order, but it makes sense to adopt the order established by the Oxford Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA). There are scores of other citation systems, but we felt that the OSCOLA system provided the most important information in the most concise manner. That system would arrange the components like this: Case Name,[Year Decided]ReporterUnique Identifying Number(Issuing Court and Divison)Pinpoint ReferenceTo better illustrate the citation elements, a few examples are included. For instance, if we wanted to make a general reference to a High Court criminal case decided in 2014 that was the 500th case to be uploaded onto eKLR, the citation would look like this:R v Odhiambo, [2014] eKLR 500 (HC).If we were to refer to paragraph 14 of the same case, the citation would look like this: R v Odhiambo, [2014] eKLR 500 (HC) [14]If we referred to page 14, as opposed to paragraph 14 of the same case, the citation would look like this: R v Odhiambo, [2014] eKLR 500 (HC) 14A 2014 decision from the Employment and Labour Relations Court that was the 678th case uploaded onto eKLR would look like this: Macharia v Tunoi, [2014] eKLR 678 (ELRC) [32]A 2014 decision filed in the Environmental Land Court that was the 5,956th case uploaded onto eKLR would look like this: Wanyoiki v Ghai, [2014] eKLR 5956 (ELC) [45]Case NamesConsistent with OSCOLA, we recommend the following rules:Emphasize the case name in italics with an unpunctuated ‘v’ to separate the names of adverse parties.Use standard font for the remaining part of the citation. Emphasizing the entire citation, rather than just the name of the parties, does not help the reader find the citation any better and contributes to reader fatigue. We have chosen italics for two reasons. First, most, if not all, commonwealth countries as well as South Africa use italics in their online databases. Second, boldfont is somewhat harder to read and therefore more likely to contribute to reader fatigue. Uganda uses both bold and italics, a choice that is frowned upon. Where there are multiple parties, include only the last names of the first parties and the number of remaining partiesfollowed by either‘Ors’ or ‘Anr’ to indicate that other parties were involved. For example,Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR, would have the following case name:Muruatetu & Anr v R & 5 OrsBecause the eKLR citation would be sufficient to identify the case, the full name of the plaintiffs would no longer be necessary. Abbreviations of Institutional NamesSimilarly, we recommend that the citation system relies on abbreviations of common institutional names. Thus, as above, Republic would by abbreviated to R. Similarly, a common litigant such as the Internal Electoral and Boundaries Commission would be replaced with IEBC. These abbreviations cut down on excess wordiness without sacrificing accuracy.Issuing CourtWe recommend that issuing court names be abbreviated, as well. This is also consistent with OSCOLA, South Africa, and other Commonwealth Countries that have developed a uniform system of citation. It also makes sense since there are only a finite number of courts and tribunals reported on eKLR. Consistent with our references above, we recommend the following abbreviations: Superior CourtsSupreme Court – SC Court of Appeals – CAHigh Court – HC Environmental and Land Court – ELC Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) Subordinate courtsMagistrate Court – MCKhadis Court – KCInternational Courts and TribunalsEast African Court of Justice – EACJInterim Independent Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court – IICDRCCourt of Appeals for East Africa – COAEA Commissions, Ad Hoc Tribunals, Vetting BoardsCommissions and Ad Hoc Tribunals – CATJudges and Magistrates Vetting Board – JMVB National Environmental Tribunal – NETDispute Resolution Committee (IEBC) – DRC-IEBC Political Party’s Tribunal – PPT Divisions of the High CourtThe Kenyan High Court is separated into divisions that focus on particular kinds of cases. We do not recommend including the division of the High Court within the citation. Each High Court case has the same precedential value regardless of which division it came from. However, if the division of the High Court is determined to be necessary, we recommend the citations include the abbreviation for the HC followed by an abbreviation for the division in which the case was heard. For example: Charo v R, [2016] eKLR 55 (HC Crim Div)Common Words and PhrasesWe recommend that common words and phrases in case names be abbreviated as well. We believe that the following words and phrases can be used in decision names without causing any confusion:Another – AnrAttorney-General – AGOffice of the Deputy Public Prosecutor – DPPCommissioner/Commissioners – Comr/ComrsDepartment – DeptExecutor – ExorExecutrix – ExrxIncorporated – IncLiquidation – LiqLimited – LtdOthers – OrsRepublic – R Constitutional CommissionsThe following bodies established under the Constitution can be abbreviated in the following manner: Commission on Revenue Allocation – CRAEthics and Anti-Corruption Commission – EACCIndependent Electoral and Boundaries Commission – IEBCJudicial Services Commission – JSCKenya National Human Rights and Equality Commission – KNHRECNational Land Commission – NLCNational Police Service Commission -- NPSCParliamentary Service Commission – ParSCPublic Service Commission – PubSCSalaries and Remuneration Commission – SRCTeachers Service Commission – TSCPinpoint CitationsConsistent with OSCOLA, we recommend that pinpoint citations to a specific paragraph within an authority be inserted in brackets while a citation to a page number be written without pare:Pinpoint Citation to paragraph: Muruatetu & Anr v R & 5 Ors[2016] eKLR (SC) [35]Pinpoint Citation to page:Muruatetu & Anr v R & 5 Ors[2016] eKLR (SC) 35HyperlinksOne of the most significant advantages to an online database is the ability to embed a link to the cited authority within the document. Ideally, whenever a case refers to an authority, a link should be embedded within the case to the online source for that authority. Such links are included in this report where an online source is available.Some online databases, such as South African Legal Information Institute, Canadian Legal Information Institute, the British and Irish Legal Information Institute, and many others include such hyperlinks. It is strongly suggested that, if possible, eKLR embed hyperlinks into the cases published on its cite.It is not necessary to include a hyperlink to the entire citation. Having the hyperlink connected to the name of the case, as is done in this report, would suffice. Kenyan LegislationMost Kenyan Acts identify a short title at the beginning of the Act. This short title should be used as the citation. Although there are some variations in the form of the short title in the Acts, as a general rule, the Act should be cited in the following format: Act title,yearFor example:Access to Information Act, 2016Some older Acts, such as the Criminal Procedure Code or the Civil Procedure Code, do not include the year enacted in the citation. These statutes should be cited without the year.Civil Procedure CodeCriminal Procedure CodePenal CodeIt is not necessary to include the Act Number in the citation. Parts of StatutesStatutes are divided into parts, sections, subsections, paragraphs and subparagraphs. In addition, the main text of the statute may be supplemented by schedules, which are divided into paragraphs and subparagraphs. The relevant abbreviations are:part/parts — pt/ptssection/sections — s/sssubsection/subsections — sub-s/sub-ssparagraph/paragraphs — para/parassubparagraph/subparagraphs — subpara/subparasschedule/schedules — sch/schsDo not use the abbreviations at the beginning of a sentence or when referring to the statute but not repeating the name of the Act. For example:Section 52 of the Penal Code addresses the government’s power to prohibit publications. There is some doubt as to whether section 52 would pass constitutional scrutiny. Insert a comma [,] following the title of the Act and before the part of the statute referenced. For example:Access to Information Act, 2016, s 12Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009, pt IISenate or National Assembly BillsBills should be cited by their name, followed by the National Assembly or Senate Bill Number in parentheses, and then the Gazette Number in brackets. “National Assembly” should be abbreviated to ‘NA’. ‘Senate’ should be abbreviated to ‘S’.title(Senate Bill Number) or (National Assembly Bill Number)[Gazette Number] For example, a Senate Bill should be written as: The County Allocation of Revenue Bill (S Bill 3 of 2016) [51]A National Assembly bill should be written as: Government Contracts Bill, 2018 (NA Bill 9 of 2018) [32]The abbreviations used for sections of Kenyan Acts should also be used with bills. For example, cite section 2 of the Government Contracts Bill, 2018 as: Government Contracts Bill, 2018 (NA Bill 9 of 2018) [32], s 2Legal Notices and RegulationsAs with acts of Parliament, most legal notices state a short title in the in the first section of the notice or regulation. For example: Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) (Amendment) Regulations, 2009, s 1.If the legal notice or regulation does not provide a short title, it should be cited in the same format as an Act.Legal notices and regulations should use the same abbreviations as Acts and Bills. County LegislationLegislation from the counties should be cited in the same manner as national legislation. Title(dd Month yyyy)[Gazette Supplement Number]For example:Nyeri County Appropriation Bill, 2017 (23 May 2017) [4]Gazette NoticesGazette Notices that concern issues other than legislation or legal notices and regulations should be cited with the title in italics followed by the volume number brackets. After the brackets, put in the notice number followed by the date in parentheses. The page number follows the date. For example:Title,[Volume number]Notice Number(date)page For example, the notice for a grant of letters of administration in Cause Number 15 of 2017 published in the Kenya Gazette on 26 January 2018, should be cited like this:The Kenya Gazette,[Vol CXX – No 59] Notice No 727 (26 Jan 2018) 73.Secondary SourcesThis reports focuses on citations for documents on the Kenya Law Reports website. Nevertheless, adopting uniform systems of citations for other, secondary resources, will contribute to the jurisprudential values discussed above. We recommend that secondary sources be cited as indicated by the 4th edition of the Oxford Standard Citation for Legal Authorities. Below is a brief summary of the OSCOLA requirements. BooksCite the author’s name first, followed by a comma and then the title of the book in italics. Write the author’s name as it appears on the publication. If there are two authors, include them both separated by ‘and’. If there are three authors, give the name of the first author followed by ‘and others’. The publication information follows the title in parentheses. The publication information should, at a minimum, include the publisher and year. If there is more than one edition to the book, the edition number should also be included. authortitle(additional information,edition,publisher,year)David W Cohen and Elisha Stephen Atieno Odhiambo, Burying SM: The Politics of Knowledge and the Sociology of Power in Africa (Heinemann Educational Books, 1992)Wayne C Booth and others, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace (12th ed, University of Chicago Press, 2016)JournalsWhen citing journals, provide the author’s name followed by a comma. Authors should be cited in the same manner as books. Then write the title of the work in single quotation marks. After the title, give the publication information in the following order: year of publication, in square brackets if it identifies the volume, in round brackets if there is a separate volume number;the volume number if there is one (include an issue number only if the page numbers begin again for each issue within a volume, in which case put the issue number in brackets immediately after the volume number);the name of the journal in full or abbreviated form, with no full stops; andthe first page of the article.author‘title’[year]journal name or abbreviationfirst page of articleorauthor‘title’(year)volumejournal name or abbreviationfirst page of articleFor example:Paul Craig, ‘Theory, “Pure Theory” and Values in Public Law’ [2005] PL 440Thomas Baker, ‘An Introduction to Federal Court Rulemaking Procedure’ (1991)22 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 323Newspapers Articles and PeriodicalsFor newspaper articles, give the author, the title, the name of the newspaper in italics and then in parentheses the city of publication and the date. The page number of the article should follow the parentheses. author,‘title’newspaper(city of publication,dd Month yyyy)page numberAdam Korir, ‘Kenyan Judiciary Adopts Citation Guidelines’ East African Review (Naivasha, 05 May 2013) 3If the article referred to is on the internet and does not cite the page, include the URL either as a hyperlink embedded in the title or written out following the date.author,‘title’with URL embedded as a hyperlinknewspaper(city,dd month yyyy)accessed dd month yyyyIbrahim Oruko, ‘Africa Trade Pact Set for AU after MPs Ratify Deal’Daily Nation (Nairobi, 6 May 2018) accessed 6 May 2018orauthor‘title’newspaper(city,dd month yyyy)<URL> accessed dd Month yyyyIbrahim Oruko, ‘Africa Trade Pact Set for AU after MPs Ratify Deal’ Daily Nation (Nairobi, 6 May 2018) <; accessed 6 May 2018For online sources, embedding the URL as a hyperlink, rather than including the hyperlink as text, is preferable for a variety of reasons. An embedded URL provides a much shorter, easier to read citation. Hyperlinks can be long. The one above, for example, is over 100 characters, and it is on the shorter side. Some URLs can be two or three times that length. Second, writing out the URL adds little value to the citation. Third, the embedded URL allows the reader to focus on the content of the cite rather than the excess noise provided by a string of words and numbers connected by forward slashes and dashes.Readability, esthetics, and the ability to focus on content all favor embedding URLs as hyperlinks rather than writing them out. ConclusionThis Report provides suggestions for a uniform system of citation for the primary sources for Kenyan legal authority as well as secondary sources such as journals and articles. The suggested system closely follows the Oxford System for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) and intends to provide a straightforward and clear way to identify sources that support the legal arguments made by lawyers and judges. Adopting such uniform citations will help improve the quality and reliability of legal advocacy and scholarship in Kenya. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download