Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 937747,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/937747/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 295,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Kasanga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13185,
        "legal_name": "Sylvia Mueni Kasanga",
        "slug": "sylvia-mueni-kasanga"
    },
    "content": "of the way. However, we want to provide the possibility of a register for traditional dispute resolvers. This can help the courts to refer certain matters to traditional dispute resolvers. It is for that reason that we are requiring that the committee may keep a register of the traditional dispute resolvers. Clauses 29 and 30 provide that when traditional dispute resolution comes to an end, then a decision has been reached. However, if for any reason, a party to that process is not happy with the decision, we have a part that will require or provide for recourse in court. That is under Part V of the Bill. Clauses 29 and 30 are also proposing that the outcomes of traditional dispute resolution processes may be in writing and the words here are ‘may be in writing’. This is there for the parties who have participated in this process, but may want to have recourse in court or may need the settlement to be enforced. There must be a way of having a written outcome. I know that a lot of conversation will go around the traditional dispute resolution processes. I call upon the Senators to give as many views as possible towards this to help us enhance the Bill. Part V of the Bill provides for recourse in court, as I had mentioned earlier, and this is for recognition and enforcement of settlements. Clause 31 requires an advocate to a person to advise that person to consider resolving a dispute by way of ADR before filing the case in court. Equally, Clause 32 obligates a court to confirm that parties have considered ADR mechanisms prior to filing a dispute in court. This is the revolutionary part of it. It has happened in other jurisdictions. In certain civil disputes, there must be a demonstration that parties have first attempted other methods of dispute resolution. This Bill requires this to happen. The purposes of all these is to ensure parties are aware of and there are afforded an opportunity to consider alternative dispute resolution earlier enough in their dispute resolution process. This also helps inform costs and case management. In the process of resolving dispute through alternative dispute resolution, certain issues may arise that require the intervention of the court. We have looked into areas in the dispute resolution process under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), where the courts may have to intervene. We agree that it is party driven process; it is confidential. The courts may not be part of it, but there are other times when the intervention of a court is required. Such issues have been identified in the Bill. For instance, the need for interim protection for whatever issue, or the matter can be resolved through ADR. In that case, the court can intervene over an issue and say: “No, you go and solve that issue in that manner.”"
}