English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This contribution consists of a comparative analysis of the doctrine of judicial independence – more particularly, the principle of individual judicial independence – in the legal systems of Kenya and in South Africa. It is common knowledge that judicial independence consists of two interlinked components: the first element serves to protect the individual independence of judges; and the second seeks to enhance the institutional independence of the courts. The first element is concerned with the requirement that judges should decide cases independently and impartially by application of the law. The second component refers to the independence of the judiciary from the other branches of government. In other words, the notion of the individual independence of the judiciary serves to protect the rights of judges in regard to, inter alia, their removal from office. This contribution is focused on the constitutional mechanisms adopted in the relevant jurisdictions to remove judges from office.

A Comparative Analysis of the Constitutional Frameworks for the Removal of Judges in the Jurisdictions of Kenya and South Africa