The Technological Determinants of Digital Inclusivity in E-Justice Systems: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Design, Access, and Format Availability for Persons with Disabilities in Kenya

The swift move to digitise court operations offers the prospect of broader justice access; yet, poorly implemented technologies can turn online judicial systems into barriers rather than enablers for persons with disabilities. This research examines how three interrelated technological elements, inclusive design approaches, multiple accessible channels, and provision of alternative formats, shape digital inclusion within Kenya’s e‑justice environment for persons with disabilities. Anchored in the Social Model of Disability and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2), the study used a sequential explanatory mixed‑methods approach. Quantitative data were gathered from 362 court users, judicial personnel, and legal practitioners in Nairobi County and analysed via covariance‑based structural equation modelling (CB‑SEM). Qualitative insights from semi‑structured interviews with six persons with disabilities provided contextual corroboration. Results indicate that technology variables have a positive, statistically meaningful effect on digital inclusion (β = 0.556, p < 0.001), accounting for 31% of its variance. Multichannel accessibility was the strongest component (factor loading = 0.776), trailed by inclusive design practices (0.720) and alternative formats (0.717). Nevertheless, interview data uncovered a significant execution shortfall: untagged PDFs hinder screen reader access, platforms lack built‑in speech output, and magnification remains a manual workaround unsupported by the systems. The study concludes that technology is necessary but not alone sufficient for inclusive e‑justice; compatibility with assistive technologies and institutional supports are essential enhancers. Recommendations include requiring assistive technology interoperability testing in procurement, integrating native accessibility features into platform architecture, treating multichannel access as functional redundancy rather than mere channel multiplication, and instituting recurring, user‑led accessibility audits. These conclusions bear important implications for policymakers, accessibility evaluators, and designers striving for fair digital justice across the Global South.