Abstract:
How communicative rationality is constructed and shared among interlocutors
in a court in the seeking of justice, given the background of distrust in the
Kenyan Presidential Election context, gave attention to this study. The study
investigated the construction of communicative rationality in the courtyard.
The study assessed the types of illocutionary forces and their discursive legal
practices and determined how interlocutors redeem the illocutionary logic in
the courtyard. A documentary review of the written judgment of Ruto against
Odinga in the presidential election of 2022 was used as the data collection
method. The analytical frameworks involved Austin's (1962b) Speech Act
theory and Searle and Vanderveken's (1985) illocutionary commitments. The
findings showed that petitioners chose illocutionary forces to downgrade
respondents' claims. The discursive nature of their legal practices was
characterized by a lack of fairness, transparency, and integrity of IEBC and its
Chairperson. Respondents used illocutionary forces, including denials, for face
protection and repair. Their discursive legal practices were characterized by
compliance, transparency, and accountability to win the Court's decision.
Petitioners and respondents used much propositional content, modes of
achievement, and preparatory conditions to construct their validity claims. In
achieving justice, the group of Judges must consider interlocutors'
presentations of credible statements of truth and acceptable normative
statements of legal practices. A group of Judges needs to take precautions
against the interlocutors' tricks and manipulation of the Constitution for
effective decision-making.
