News & Analysis

Some of the Key Issues to Consider in Legislating ADR in Kenya

Published

1 year ago

February 27, 2022

Admin

By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD (Leading Environmental Law Scholar, Policy Advisor, Natural Resources Lawyer and Dispute Resolution Expert from Kenya), Winner of Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021, ADR Publication of the Year 2021 and CIArb (Kenya) Lifetime Achievement Award 2021*

As the Government pursues the policy of encouraging ADR to foster a more conciliatory approach to conflict management through legislation, it important to ensure that parties have a choice on whether to use or not ADR and their obligations, rights and duties when they should to participate in ADR should be clearly defined. Thus, while there are obvious limitations to the use of formal law in regulating ADR given the diverse contexts in which ADR is practiced, where legislation is opted for, the following issues should as far as possible be addressed to provide clarity to the ADR process and reduce potential challenges to the ADR outcome.

Referral of disputes to ADR

Law makers need to decide which method of ADR referral should be employed. Referral may be compulsory by a court or voluntary, where parties are at will to decide whether to submit their dispute to an ADR forum. It may also be mandatory or at the discretion of the referrer, as contemplated in the Mediation (Pilot Project) Rules, 2015. The Civil Procedure Act provides for discretionary compulsory referral as well as voluntary referral. Where there is compulsory participation, it is important that there be established professional standards for the process as well as for the practitioners, to ensure a quality process and a quality outcome. These processes also need to be described so as to effectively promote public confidence.

It is noteworthy that one of the main reasons why most of the ADR mechanisms are popular and preferred to litigation are their relative party autonomy which makes parties gain and retain control over the process and the outcome. It is therefore important for the court to ensure that there is no foreseeable factor that may interfere with this autonomy as it may defeat the main purpose of engaging in these processes. One of the constitutional requirements with regard to access to justice in Kenya is that the State should ensure that cost should not impede access to justice and, if any fee is required, the same should be reasonable. It is, therefore, important that even where persons use private means of accessing justice, the cost should be reasonable. This is especially where there was no prior agreement to engage in ADR. Regulation of ADR should also ensure that the outcome of the ADR mechanisms remains flexible, parties can settle on outcomes that satisfactorily address their needs and nothing affects parties’ ability and willingness to participate in such processes.

Obligations of parties to participate in ADR

Compulsory participation in ADR is highly opposed by those in favour of voluntary participation in ADR who argue that conciliation or mediation is essentially a consensual process that requires the co-operation and consent of the parties. On the other hand, those who argue in favour of compulsory participation in ADR respond that if the dispute is removed from the adversarial procedures of the courts and exposed to procedures designed to promote compromise, then even the most fundamental resistance to compromise can turn to co-operation and consent. The element of ‘good faith’ which is usually present in voluntary ADR is not assured in compulsory ADR, leading states and courts to give rules requiring parties to participate in ADR in good faith or ‘in a meaningful manner.’

Courts also sanction parties for violations of a good-faith-participation requirement such as for failing to attend or participate in an ADR process or engaging in a pattern of obstructive, abusive, or dilatory tactics. Sanctions include the shifting of costs and attorney’s fees, contempt, denial of trial de novo, and even dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawmakers should thus have regard to what conduct constitutes good conduct, a system of handling claims of bad faith, maintenance of the confidentiality of the process even as such case of bad faith is before the court and the effects of non-compliance with the good faith participation requirement. The overall goal should be to promote meaningful access to justice for all. For purposes of ensuring justice is done, sometimes courts may force parties to the negotiating table especially where one of the parties refuses to do so with ulterior motive of defeating justice. The third party umpire in collaboration with the court, where necessary, may invent ways of dealing with power imbalances and bad faith for the sake of ensuring justice is achieved.

Standards and Accreditation of ADR practitioners

It has been argued that development of standards of practitioners will ensure much greater accountability of practitioners. Sociologists argue that professionals perform better “on stage” (in public) than they do “off stage” (in private) and this has consequences for issues of integrity in arbitration. It is also argued that documented standards would also provide a source of information to enable consumers to know what to expect of an ADR practitioner, a basis for choosing a particular type of ADR, and an ‘industry norm’ against which to measure the performance of the practitioner. They would also improve the public awareness of ADR. These standards may be provided by either professional groups or by the government.

The standards of conduct of individual professional groups are still the primary source of regulation in most states. Codes of professional conduct tailored to mediation and ADR have been issued by various professional organizations. It is argued that as governments are increasingly legislating to require parties to attend ADR, such as in the litigation context, they need to be accountable for the competence of practitioners performing these services. Legislative instruments that provide for compulsory submission of a dispute to ADR should thus also provide minimum standards of conduct for the practitioners. The provision of standards will also go towards boosting the public’s confidence in ADR, as parties need to have confidence that the quality of the ADR service will meet the standards of professionalism. Knowledge of how the practitioner’s standards are met through training and accreditation, as well as a complaints mechanism will also boost public awareness and public confidence.

Standards may, however, in detailing the structure of ADR, restrain creative ways of solving disputes, and with ADR being applicable in a variety of contexts, standards may not be applicable in all the available contexts. Standards should be formulated with the objective of ensuring a fair ADR process, protecting the consumer, establishing public confidence and building capacity in the field. Issues to consider when setting out the duties and standards of ADR practitioners include: how the practitioner is to be selected, the role of the practitioner, impartiality, conflicts of interest, competence, confidentiality, the quality of the process, the termination of the ADR process, recording settlement, publicity, advertising and fees. It has been suggested that rather than establishing a single body to accredit each mediator individually, a system is required to accredit organisations which in turn accredit mediators.

In order for these organisations to be approved, they would need to develop common standards for initial assessment, as well as ongoing monitoring, review and disciplinary processes for mediator. The downside to this kind of approach would be the risk of locking out those who acquire their skills and expertise outside this jurisdiction as it would not be clear if they would need to compulsorily become members of local organisations for accreditation. For mediation, there is already in place Mediation Accreditation Committee but for the other mechanisms it is not clear how such an approach would be implemented as there exists no body at the moment. This also risks leaving out the informal experts who may be lacking in the required ‘professional’ qualifications to qualify to join such bodies. This requires careful consideration by the concerned stakeholders.

Confidentiality of communications made during ADR and Inadmissibility of Evidence

Confidentiality is central to ADR as it allow parties to freely engage in candid, informal discussions of their interests to reach the best possible settlement of their dispute. The parties to the dispute and the neutral third party have a duty to maintain such confidentiality, with the neutral being held to a higher standard of non-disclosure. The neutral has a duty not to disclose to a third party, as well as not to disclose to the other party what has been told to him by a party in private. The question that law makers should consider is whether confidentiality should be mandated by statute, and what sanctions will be employed when breach occurs. They should also consider the circumstances under which an exception to confidentiality lies. Limitations of confidentiality arise in a variety of instances: by consent of the parties; where mandated by law; where a crime is committed or a threat is made to commit such crime.

Inadmissibility is intertwined with the issue of confidentiality of communications during ADR. This is an approach taken to protect the confidentiality of the ADR process, by statutory provision that evidence of matters in an ADR proceeding is inadmissible in later court proceedings. This issue also includes the compellability of ADR practitioners to give evidence before subsequent court proceedings. The mediation (Pilot Project) Rules, 2015 also recognises the importance of this and provides that all communication during mediation including the mediator’s notes are to be deemed to be confidential and shall not be admissible in evidence in any current or subsequent litigation or proceedings.

Protection of communications in ADR should be guaranteed as this protects the finality of the decision reached by the parties and enhances communication for purposes of resolving conflicts. If parties knew that whatever they share may later be used against them, then they would be unwilling to do so, thus, defeating the essence of engaging in ADR and TDR. One of the selling points of these mechanisms is open communication for purposes of reaching a decision or ensuring that parties are able to craft an agreement through sharing.

Finally, Lawmakers and Policy-makers should recognise the desirability of enabling diversity, flexibility and dynamism in conflict management practices and processes. They should also have in mind that ADR processes cannot be viewed in isolation. Party autonomy allows the parties to craft a hybrid process, linking different techniques and processes to meet their contextual need. They thus need to be viewed in the larger ADR context. In drafting legislation, provision should thus be made for parties to retain as much autonomy as possible.

*This article is an extract from the Article Regulating Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Practice in Kenya: Looking into the Future, 10(1) Alternative Dispute Resolution Journal, p. 1 by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD, Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021 (Nairobi Legal Awards), ADR Publisher of the Year 2021 and ADR Lifetime Achievement Award 2021 (CIArb Kenya). Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a foremost Environmental Law and Natural Resources Lawyer and Scholar, Sustainable Development Advocate and Conflict Management Expert in Kenya. Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a Senior Lecturer of Environmental Law and Dispute resolution at the University of Nairobi School of Law and The Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASELAP). He has published numerous books and articles on Environmental Law, Environmental Justice Conflict Management, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Sustainable Development. Dr. Muigua is also a Chartered Arbitrator, an Accredited Mediator, the Africa Trustee of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Managing Partner of Kariuki Muigua & Co. Advocates. Dr. Muigua is recognized among the top 5 leading lawyers and dispute resolution experts in Kenya by the Chambers Global Guide 2022.

References

Constitution of Kenya, 2010,

Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, Laws of Kenya.

Muigua, K., Resolving Conflicts through Mediation in Kenya. (Glenwood Publishers Ltd, Nairobi, 2012), Chap.2, pp. 20-37.

Muigua, K., “Heralding A New Dawn: Achieving Justice Through Effective Application of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (ADR) in Kenya”, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Kenya), Alternative Dispute Resolution, Vol. 1, No 1, (2013), pp. 43-78.

Muigua, K., Court Sanctioned Mediation in Kenya-An Appraisal, available at http://www.kmco.co.ke/ attachments/article/152/Court%20Sanctioned%20Mediation%20in%2 0Kenya-An%20Appraisal-By%20Kariuki%20Muigua.pdf .

Muigua, K., ‘Empowering the Kenyan People through Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms,’ Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Kenya), Alternative Dispute Resolution, Vol. 3, No. 2, (2015), pp. 64-108.

Muigua, K., ‘Effective Justice for Kenyans: is ADR Really Alternative?’ The Law Society of Kenya Journal, Vol. II, 2015, No. 1, pp. 49-62.

Muigua, K., ‘Legitimising Alternative Dispute Resolution in Kenya: Towards a Policy and Legal Framework,’ Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Kenya), Alternative Dispute Resolution, Volume 5, No 1, (2017), pp. 74-104.

Up Next

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Don't Miss

Legislating the Definition and Scope of ADR Type or Processes in Kenya

Click to comment

News & Analysis

Former KCB Company Secretary Sues Over Unlawful Dismissal

Published

2 months ago

January 19, 2023

Admin

Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania who has sued the Bank for Unlawful Dismissal

Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania has sued the lender seeking reinstatement or be compensated for illegal sacking almost three years ago. Lawyer Kania was the KCB Group company secretary until restructuring of the lender in 2021 that saw some senior executives dropped.

Through the firm of Senior Counsel Wilfred Nderitu, Kamau wants the court to order KCB Group to unconditionally reinstate him to employment without altering any of the contractual terms until his retirement in December 2025.

In his court documents filed before Employment and Labour Relations Court, the career law banker seeks the court to declare the reorganization of the company structure a nullity and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution. He further wants the court to declare that the position of Group Company Secretary did not at any time cease to exist within the KCB Group structure.

He further urged the Employment Court to declare that the recruitment and appointment of Bonnie Okumu, his former assistant, as the Group Company Secretary, in relation to the contemporaneous termination of his employment, was unprocedural, insufficient and inappropriate to infer a lawful termination of his employment.

“A declaration that the factual and legal circumstances of the Petitioner’s termination of employment were insufficient and inappropriate to infer a redundancy against him, and that any redundancy declared by the KCB Group in relation to him was therefore null, void and of no legal effect and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau says he was subjected to discriminatory practices by the KCB Bank Group in violation of his fundamental right to equality and freedom from discrimination as guaranteed in Article 27 of the Constitution and the termination of his employment was unfair, unjustified, illegal, null and void.

Lawyer Kamau further seeks the court to declare that the Non-Compete Clause in the 2016 Contract is unenforceable by the KCB Group as against him and is voidable by him as against the Bank ab initio, byreason of the termination of the Petitioner’s employment having been a violation of Articles 41(1) and 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution, and of the Employment Act.

He also wants the Employment Court to find that finding that KCB’s group legal representation by Messrs of Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates law firm in respect of his claim for unlawful termination of employment resulted in a clear conflict of interest by reason of the fact that a Founding and Senior Partner at the said firm lawyer Mohammed Nyaoga is also the Chairman of the CBK’s Board of Directors.

“A Declaration that the circumstances of KCB’s legal representation by Messrs. Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates resulted in a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to have the employment dispute decided independently and impartially, as guaranteed in Article 50(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau is seeking damages against both KCB Group and Central Bank of Kenya jointly and severally for the violation of his constitutional and fundamental right to fair labour practices.

He wants further wants court to declare that CBK is liable to petitioner on account of its breach of statutory duty to effectively regulate KCB Group to ensure that KCB complied with the Central Bank of Kenya Prudential Guidelines and all other Laws, Rules, Codes and Standards, and that, as an issuer of securities, it complied with capital markets legislation.

Kamau through his lawyer Nderitu told the court that he was involved in Shareholder engagement in introducing the Group aide-mémoire that significantly improved the management of the Annual General Meetings, including obtaining approval without voting through the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Kenya Commercial Bank Limited among others.

He said that during his employment at KCB Bank Kenya and with the KCB Group, he initially worked well with former KCB CEO Joseph Oigara until 2016 when the CEO allegedly started sidelining him by removing the legal function from his reporting line.

He further claims he was transferred from the Group’s offices at Kencom House to its offices Upper Hill under the guise that the Petitioner was merely to support the KCB Group Board.

He adds that at that point his roles were given to Okumu for reasons that were not related to work demands. He stated that Oigara at one time proposed that he should leave his role in the KCB Group and go and serve as the Company Secretary of the National Bank of Kenya Limited, a subsidiary of the Group, a suggestion which he disagreed with to Oigara’s utter annoyance.

Kamau stated that his work was thenceforth unfairly discredited, leading to his being taken through a disciplinary process whose intended outcome failed miserably, and the Petitioner was vindicated.

“More specifically, the Petitioner contends that the purported creation of a new organizational structure towards the end of 2020 was in fact Oigara’s orchestration targeted to remove certain individuals by requiring them to undergo interviews in the pretext that new roles were created, and amounted to a further violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to fair labour practices under Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” said in his court documents.

He further adds that this sham reorganization demonstrates how the role of the KCB Group Company Secretary purportedly ceased to be and was then very briefly replaced with a new role of the KCB Group General Counsel. The role of KCB Group Company Secretary then ‘resurfaced’ immediately thereafter, in total violation of legal and regulatory requirements.

News & Analysis

Court of Appeal Upholds Eviction of Radcliffes from Karen Land

Published

6 months ago

October 7, 2022

Admin

Adrian Radcliffe, the Expatriate Squatter, Evicted from Karen Property by Innocent Purchaser for Value

The Court of Appeal has stayed the decision of the Environment and Land Court purporting to reinstate Adrian Radcliffe into possession of the 5.7 Acre Karen Land by Kena Properties Ltd after eviction by the lawful owners in February 2022. Adrian Radcliffe who was evicted by Kena Properties Ltd, the innocent purchaser of the Land for value.

Before his eviction, Mr. Radcliffe had been living on the land as a squatter expatriate for 33 years without paying any rent. Since he moved into the property as a tenant, he only paid deposit for the land in August 1989 despite corresponding severally with the owner of the land. His attempt to acquire the land by adverse possession claim filed in 2005 was dismissed by Court in 2011 on the basis that he has engaged with the owner of the land July 1997 and agreed to buy the land which he failed to do. The High Court [Justice Kalpana Rawal as she then was] concluded that:

“His [Mr. Adrian Radcliffe] averments that he did not have any idea of the whereabouts of the Defendant and that he could possibly be not alive, were not only very sad but mala fide in view of the correspondence on record addressed by him to the Defendant’s wife. I would thus find that the averments made by him to the contrary are untrue looking to the facts of this case.”

On 10^th March 2022, Mr. Adrian Radcliffe and Family purported to obtain court orders for reinstatement into the land. However, the Court of Appeal issued an interim stay of execution of the said orders. The Court of Appeal has now granted the application of Kena Properties Ltd and stayed the execution of the Environment and Land Court Order pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal.

The Court also stayed the proceedings at the Environment and Land Court on the matter during the pendency of the Appeal. In effect, the eviction orders issued by the Chief Magistrate Court for eviction of Mr. Adrian Radcliffe in favour of Kena Properties as the purchaser of the property for value were upheld and the company now enjoys unfettered ownership and possession of the suit property until the conclusion of the Appeal.

The Court of Appeal in granting the orders sought by Kena Properties Ltd concurred with Kena Properties Ltd that as the property owner it had an arguable appeal with a high probability of success which would be rendered nugatory if Adrian Radcliffe a trespasser was to resume his unlawful possession of the suit property, erect structures thereon, recklessly use or abuse the said suit property as he deems fit. In any case, that is bound to fundamentally alter the state of the suit property and render it unusable by Kena Properties Ltd as the property owner.

At the same time, the Appellate Court rubbished the argument of Adrian Radcliffe in opposition to the application for stay that he has been in occupation of the suit property for more than 30 years and that he and his family were unlawfully evicted from the suit property on 4th February, 2022. The Court also rejected Radcliffe’s claim that Kena Properties Ltd has no valid title to the suit property and held that as the purchaser, the company was entitled to enjoy ownership and possession of their property during the pendency of the appeal.

The Court dismissed claims of Mr. Adrian Radcliffe that Kena Properties Ltd as the property owner acquired title to the suit property illegally and unprocedurally finding to the contrary. Further, it rejected Adrian Radcliffe’s claim that Kena Properties as the purchaser cannot evict a legal occupier of a property putting paid to the claim that he was a legal occupier at the time of eviction.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Adrian Radcliffe cannot claim to be the legal occupier of the property having attempted to acquire it by adverse possession before the High Court thwarted his fraudulent scheme on 28th February 2011. Mr. Radcliffe did not appeal the 2011 High Court decision meaning it is still the law that he is not the owner of the land nor the legal occupier of the land having attempted to adversely acquire against the interests of the lawful owner who sold it to Kena Properties.

Mr. Adrian Radcliffe is a well-to-do Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WaSH) UNICEF consultant and former UN employee (who has been earning hefty House Allowance). Many have wondered why he has been defaulting in paying rent for 33 years on the prime plot of land in Karen while living large and taking his kids to most expensive schools in Kenya. No question, a local Kenyan could never have gotten away with such selfish impunity.

News & Analysis

Review: Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, No. 1

Published

7 months ago

September 11, 2022

Admin

The Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development, Volume 9, Issue No. 1, which is edited by and published by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD is out and stays true to the reputation of the journal in providing a platform for scholarly debate on thematic areas in the fields of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development. The current issue published in September 2022 covers diverse topics including Resolving Oil and Gas Disputes in Africa; National Environment Tribunal, Sustainable Development and Access to Justice in Kenya; Protection of Cultural Heritage During War; The Role of Water in the attainment of Sustainable Development in Kenya; Property Rights in Human Biological Materials in Kenya; Nurturing our Wetlands for Biodiversity Conservation; Investor-State Dispute Resolution in a Fast-Paced World; Status of Participation of Women in Mediation; Business of Climate Change and Critical Analysis of World Trade Organization’s Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Treatment.

Dr. Wilfred A. Mutubwa and Eunice Njeri Ng’ang’a in “Resolving Oil and Gas Disputes in an Integrating Africa: An Appraisal of the Role of Regional Arbitration Centres” explore the nature of disputes in the realm of oil and gas in Africa taking a look into the recent continental and sub-regional developments in a bid to establish regional integration. Additionally, it tests the limits of intra-African trade and dispute resolution and the imperatives for the African regional courts and arbitration centres. In “National Environment Tribunal, Sustainable Development and Access to Justice in Kenya,” Dr. Kariuki Muigua discusses the role played by the National Environment Tribunal (NET) in promoting access to justice and enhancing the principles of sustainable development in Kenya. The paper also highlights challenges facing the tribunal and proposes recommendations towards enhancing the effectiveness of the tribunal.

Dr. Kenneth Wyne Mutuma in “Protecting Cultural Heritage in Times of War: A Case for History,” argues that cultural heritage is at the heart of human existence and its preservation even in times of war is sacrosanct. It concludes that it is thus critical for states to take positive and tangible steps to ensure environmental conservation and protection during war within the ambit of the existing international legal framework. In “The Role of Water in the attainment of Sustainable Development in Kenya,” Jack Shivugu critically evaluates the role of water in the attainment of sustainable development in Kenya and argues water plays a critical role in the attainment of the sustainable development goals both in Kenya and at the global stage. The paper interrogates some of the water and Sustainable Development concerns in Kenya including water pollution, water scarcity and climate change and suggests practical ways to enhance the role of water in the Sustainable Development agenda.

Dr. Paul Ogendi in “Collective Property Rights in Human Biological Materials in Kenya,” reflects on property rights in relation to human biological materials obtained from research participants participating in genomic research. He argues that property rights are crucial in genomic research because they can help avoid exploitation or abuse of such precious material by researchers. In “Nurturing our Wetlands for Biodiversity Conservation,” Dr. Kariuki Muigua notes that Wetlands have a vital role in not just delivering ecological services to meet human needs, but also in biodiversity conservation. Wetlands are vital habitat sites for many species and a source of water, both of which contribute to biodiversity protection. The paper examines the role of wetlands in biodiversity conservation and how these wetland resources might be managed to improve biodiversity conservation.

Oseko Louis D. Obure in “Investor-State Dispute Resolution in a Fast-Paced World,” preponderance of disputes between States or States and Investors created need for a robust, effective, and efficient mechanisms not only for the resolution of these disputes but also their prevention. He notes that developing states lead in being parties to Investor-State Disputes (ISD) particularly as respondents. He proceeds to conceptualize and problematize investor-state disputes resolution in a fast-paced world. Lilian N.S. Kong’ani and Dr. Kariuki Muigua in “Status of Participation of Women in Mediation: A case Study of Development Project Conflict in Olkaria IV, Kenya” review the status of participation of women in mediation to resolve conflicts between KenGen and the community. The paper demonstrates a need for further democratization of the mediation processes to cater for more participation of women to enhance the mediation results and offer more sustainable resolutions.

Felix Otieno Odhiambo and Melinda Lorenda Mueni in “The Business of Climate Change: An Analysis of Carbon Trading in Kenya analyses the business of carbon trading in the context of Kenya’s legal framework. The article examines the legal framework that underpins climate change into the Kenyan legal system and provides an exposition of the concept of carbon trading and its various forms. Michael Okello, in “Critical Analysis of World Trade Organisation’s Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Treatment: Prospects, Challenges and Emerging Trends in the 21st Century,” highlights the rationale behind MFN treatment and also restates the vision of multilateral trade to achieve equitable and special interventions with respect to trade in goods, services and trade related intellectual property rights in the affected states.