SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN KENYAN LAND DISPUTE JUDGMENTS: A SOCIO-COGNITIVE CDA OF SELECTED RULINGS

Abstract

Contemporary legal discourse is characterised by complex sentence structures. These structures often distance legal actors from the litigants they serve, thereby limiting comprehension and potentially weakening procedural fairness in land dispute cases. Since language is central to communication, the structures employed in legal texts significantly shape meaning and accessibility. However, such complexity may present challenges to objective understanding because they may permit multiple interpretations, particularly among non-specialist audiences. It is, therefore, possible to encounter legal constructions whose meaning is elusive to litigants given that interpretation is often situated within specific institutional and socio-cognitive contexts. This study, thus, employs a socio-cognitive Critical Discourse Analysis approach within the forensic linguistics paradigm to explain complex sentence structures in court rulings of selected civil land disputes in Kwale County. The study focuses on selected rulings from the Environment and Land Court, Kwale. This court serves as the specialized, superior court branch (with dedicated ELC judges) handling formal environment, title revocation, and major land petitions for the greater Kwale region. Adopting a qualitative research design, the study purposively samples six judgments based on their relevance and linguistic richness. Data is collected through a documentary review guide. The collected data is analysed thematically to identify patterns of syntactic complexity and their discursive functions. The analysis indicates that complex sentence structures play a key role in constructing judicial authority, regulating interpretation, and embedding ideological positions. It also shows how these structures influence meaning and understanding in legal discourse. The study concludes that complex legal language contributes to the structuring of judicial reasoning and expression of legal meaning. However, the findings do not establish the extent to which such complexity enhances precision. The study therefore calls for attention to balancing legal accuracy with clarity to promote transparency and accessibility in judicial processes.