| dc.description.abstract | Customary courts have historically played a vital role in resolving land disputes in South
Sudan, since statutory courts are not easily accessible. However, admissibility of evidence,
fairness in procedures, and institutional issues that have been challenging to their work. In
Munuki Payam, land disputes are handled by the customary courts, but, there is inconsistency
in the decisions made, corruption allegations and lack of mechanisms to enforce the decisions
passed. This study sought to establish the kind of evidence that customary courts employ,
citizens’ satisfaction with the decisions made by the customary courts, and difficulties
experienced by the customary courts in handling land issues. The objectives of the study were
to identify the type of evidence accepted in the customary courts, establish the satisfaction level
of the citizens on the decisions made by customary courts and establish the factors that hinder
the efficiency of the courts. Both quantitative data from the survey and qualitative data from
the interviews was used. Three hundred and twenty-one questionnaires were retrieved from the
respondents, with a response rate of 99 percent; four interview guides were conducted, and the
response rate was 100 percent. Data was analyzed using the Microsoft Excel 2016, IBM SPSS
version 24, and MAXQDA for thematic analysis. The study showed that the customary courts
relied on oral evidence, lineage and memory and not documents thus resulting in irregularity
and legal ambiguity. Regarding the admissibility and logic of the evidence used in the
customary courts, only 9% of the respondents strongly agreed while 64% disagreed or strongly
disagreed (weighted mean = 2.4). A paltry 8% strongly agreed that trials were fair while 64%
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same (weighted mean = 2.3) regarding citizen
satisfaction with customary court rulings. Most of the respondents complained of inadequate
implementation, influence of the elites, and procedural bias. Corruption and nepotism were
rated high, 47% strongly agreed and 29% agreed that favoritism influenced the court decisions
(Weighted mean = 4.0). Thematic findings highlighted that women and displaced persons
received unfair determination of the land disputes since male inheritance prevailed over
statutory laws. The study indicated that despite the important role played by the customary
courts in resolving land disputes, they are hampered by low standards of evidence, corruption
and political influence. The findings confirmed the Legal Pluralism Theory, since customary
courts worked with statutory courts but were not part of them, thus creating legal duality.
Partially, the Participatory Justice Theory was supported, as people’s involvement did not
guarantee procedural justice. This theory was applicable to the study since most customary
courts lacked legal training, resources and accountability structures thus limiting their capacity
to deliver justice. This study recommended that customary courts should be formalized to
become part of the formal legal framework, training of officials, and fight against corruption
to enhance procedural justice. Future research should examine ways of enhancing the
compliance with customary court decisions, gender balance on the land dispute decisions and
possibilities of the emergence of an appellate jurisdiction over customary courts. | en_US |
