Law Commentaries

Dispute Resolution Bill 2025: Enhanced Access to Justice

The Dispute Resolution Bill, 2025, represents a landmark legislative effort to institutionalize and streamline Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in Kenya, aligning with the constitutional mandates of Article 159(2)(c) and Article 48 of the Constitution of Kenya, which emphasize alternative forms of dispute resolution and access to justice for all. By establishing a comprehensive legal framework for mediation and conciliation, alongside creating the National Dispute Resolution Council (NDRC), the Bill addresses long-standing gaps in Kenya’s ADR ecosystem, such as the lack of a unified legal structure and inconsistent practices. This commentary evaluates the Bill’s provisions, its alignment with the National Policy on Alternative Dispute Resolution 2024, and its potential to transform Kenya’s justice system.

Kenya’s justice system has increasingly embraced ADR to complement the overburdened traditional court system. ADR’s non-adversarial, reconciliatory approach, rooted in practical realities, has gained traction as a cost-effective and efficient alternative to litigation. However, the absence of a consolidated legal framework has led to fragmented practices, varying standards, and limited public awareness. The National Policy on Alternative Dispute Resolution 2024, approved via Sessional Paper No. 4 of 2024, identified critical challenges, including inadequate institutional, legal, and regulatory infrastructure. The Dispute Resolution Bill, 2025, responds to these gaps by operationalizing the policy’s objectives through enforceable legislation, aiming to standardize and promote ADR practices across Kenya.

The Bill’s objectives, as outlined in Clause 3, are both ambitious and pragmatic:

  • Constitutional Alignment: It gives effect to Article 159(2)(c), promoting alternative justice mechanisms, and Article 48, ensuring access to justice.

  • Effective Dispute Resolution: It establishes mediation and conciliation as accessible and efficient mechanisms.

  • Institutional Framework: The creation of the NDRC centralizes oversight and regulation.

  • Public Engagement: It fosters public awareness and participation in ADR processes.

The guiding principles under Clause 4-voluntary participation, confidentiality, and expediency—are critical to ensuring ADR remains party-driven, private, and efficient. These principles align with global best practices in ADR, fostering trust and encouraging uptake by ensuring processes are fair and non-coercive.

National Dispute Resolution Council (NDRC)

The establishment of the NDRC under Clause 5 is a cornerstone of the Bill. As an unincorporated body, the NDRC is designed to provide multidisciplinary oversight, with representation from the Judiciary, Attorney-General’s Office, faith-based organizations, and professional bodies like the Law Society of Kenya and Kenya Bankers Association (Clause 5(2)). This diverse composition ensures inclusivity and balances legal, social, and commercial perspectives.

The NDRC’s functions, detailed in Clause 6, are comprehensive:

  • Regulation and Accreditation: Overseeing bodies and practitioners offering ADR services.

  • Standardization: Developing codes of practice and ethical standards (Clauses 17).

  • Coordination: Bridging ADR and the formal justice system.

  • Public Awareness: Promoting education and research in ADR.

The creation of Practice Area Committees (Clause 14) for arbitration, mediation, conciliation, construction adjudication, and community-based practices further decentralizes and specializes oversight, ensuring tailored regulation for each ADR domain. These committees are tasked with developing standards, promoting awareness, and supporting legislative alignment (Clause 15), which enhances the Bill’s adaptability to diverse dispute resolution contexts.

Strengths

  • Multidisciplinary Governance: The NDRC’s diverse composition ensures broad stakeholder representation, reducing bias and enhancing legitimacy.

  • Practice Area Specialization: Committees allow for nuanced regulation of different ADR mechanisms, addressing their unique needs.

  • Public Engagement: The focus on awareness and education addresses the low uptake of ADR due to lack of knowledge.

Potential Challenges

  • Operational Capacity: The NDRC’s broad mandate requires significant resources and administrative capacity, which may strain implementation.

  • Independence: The appointment of members by the Attorney-General (Clause 5(3)) raises questions about potential executive influence, which could undermine impartiality.

  • Coordination with Courts: While the Bill emphasizes linkages with the formal justice system, practical integration may face logistical hurdles.

Mediation Framework

Part III (Voluntary Mediation) and Part IV (Court-Annexed Mediation) provide a robust framework for mediation, addressing procedural clarity, enforcement, and accessibility.

Voluntary Mediation (Clauses 19-31)

  • Scope and Application: Clause 19 limits mediation to disputes where it is conducted in Kenya or governed by Kenyan law, excluding matters like constitutional rights violations or domestic violence (Clause 19(2)). This ensures mediation is applied appropriately.

  • Mediation Agreement: Clause 21 mandates written agreements detailing the process, fees, confidentiality, and termination, enhancing transparency and enforceability.

  • Mediator Obligations: Clause 23 emphasizes impartiality, expeditious resolution, and conflict-of-interest disclosure, safeguarding fairness.

  • Enforcement: Clause 28 allows mediated settlement agreements to be registered as court judgments if not performed within 30 days, giving legal teeth to mediation outcomes. However, Clause 28(5) allows courts to refuse registration on grounds like fraud, public policy, or child welfare, balancing enforceability with oversight.

  • Confidentiality: Clause 29 protects mediation communications, with limited exceptions (e.g., public interest or legal requirements), reinforcing trust in the process.

Court-Annexed Mediation (Clauses 32-49)

  • Judicial Integration: Clause 32 mandates courts to consider mediation within 21 days of pleadings, streamlining case management and reducing backlogs.

  • Mediator Appointment: Clause 33 ensures mediators are qualified and listed, with parties able to choose or have one assigned, promoting flexibility and accountability.

  • Timelines and Compliance: Clause 35 sets a three-month mediation period (extendable by two months), while Clauses 39-40 address non-compliance with clear consequences, such as case progression to trial.

  • No Appeal: Clause 44 prohibits appeals against mediated judgments, ensuring finality but raising concerns about recourse for errors.

Strengths

  • Structured Process: The Bill’s detailed provisions on agreements, mediator roles, and enforcement enhance predictability and trust.

  • Court Integration: Court-annexed mediation aligns ADR with judicial processes, reducing case backlogs.

  • Enforceability: Registering agreements as court judgments ensures compliance, a significant improvement over informal ADR practices.

Potential Challenges

  • Limited Scope: Excluding constitutional and domestic violence disputes may limit mediation’s applicability in critical areas.

  • Resource Constraints: Court-annexed mediation requires significant judicial and administrative resources, which may strain courts.

  • No Appeal: The prohibition on appeals (Clause 44) may deter parties fearing erroneous settlements, though it promotes finality.

Conciliation Framework

Part V (Clauses 49-71) governs conciliation, a voluntary process where conciliators facilitate collaborative solutions. Key features include:

  • Application: Clause 50 applies to conciliations conducted in Kenya or under Kenyan law, with exclusions similar to mediation (Clause 50(2)).

  • Conciliator Role: Clauses 51-52 emphasize independence, impartiality, and clear communication of the conciliator’s role and fees.

  • Settlement Proposals: Clause 53 allows conciliators to propose binding settlements with party consent, adding flexibility compared to mediation.

  • Process and Termination: Clauses 56-71 outline initiation, appointment, meetings, and termination, ensuring procedural clarity.

  • Confidentiality: Clause 67 mirrors mediation’s confidentiality protections, with similar exceptions.

Strengths

  • Flexibility: Allowing binding settlement proposals distinguishes conciliation from mediation, catering to parties seeking more directive interventions.

  • Standardization: Clear guidelines on agreements, appointments, and termination enhance consistency.

  • Party Autonomy: The voluntary nature and party-driven appointment processes align with ADR principles.

Potential Challenges

  • Overlap with Mediation: The distinction between mediation and conciliation may confuse practitioners and parties, requiring robust public education.

  • Resource Intensity: Conciliation bodies and meetings require significant coordination, which may strain smaller institutions.

Regulation and Accreditation

Part VI (Clauses 73-87) establishes a rigorous accreditation and oversight framework:

  • Accreditation Standards: Clauses 73-74 set criteria for accrediting bodies, including checks for fraud, insolvency, or prior misconduct.

  • Suspension/Cancellation: Clause 76 empowers the NDRC to suspend or cancel accreditation for non-compliance, ensuring accountability.

  • Cost Regulation: Clause 77 allows the NDRC to cap fees, balancing affordability with practitioner remuneration.

  • Reporting: Clause 78 mandates annual reports, fostering transparency and continuous improvement.

Strengths

  • Professionalism: Strict accreditation standards elevate the quality of ADR practitioners and bodies.

  • Accountability: Suspension and cancellation powers deter unethical practices.

  • Cost Control: Fee regulation enhances accessibility for low-income parties.

Potential Challenges

  • Bureaucracy: Stringent accreditation and reporting requirements may burden smaller ADR bodies.

  • Access Barriers: Overregulation could limit the number of accredited bodies, reducing access in underserved areas.

Confidentiality and Legal Protections

Clause 85 underscores confidentiality as a cornerstone of ADR, with mediation and conciliation communications inadmissible in court except under specific exceptions (Clauses 29, 67). Clause 83 protects mediators, conciliators, and bodies from liability when acting in good faith, encouraging participation. Clause 84 imposes hefty penalties (up to KES 5 million or 10 years’ imprisonment) for violations, reinforcing compliance.

Strengths

  • Trust-Building: Confidentiality fosters open dialogue, critical for ADR’s success.

  • Legal Safeguards: Liability protections encourage practitioners to engage without fear of frivolous claims.

  • Deterrence: Severe penalties ensure adherence to ethical standards.

Potential Challenges

  • Exceptions to Confidentiality: Broad exceptions (e.g., public interest) may undermine trust if applied inconsistently.

  • Harsh Penalties: The high fines and imprisonment terms may deter legitimate practitioners due to fear of unintentional violations.

Alignment with National Policy

The Bill effectively translates the National Policy on Alternative Dispute Resolution 2024 into enforceable law. The policy’s focus on addressing inadequate legal and institutional frameworks is realized through the NDRC, standardized procedures, and accreditation mechanisms. By formalizing mediation and conciliation, the Bill ensures the policy’s aspirational goals-enhancing access to justice, reducing court backlogs, and promoting public awareness-are practically achievable.

Potential Impact

  • Access to Justice: By formalizing ADR, the Bill makes dispute resolution more affordable and accessible, particularly for marginalized groups.

  • Judicial Efficiency: Court-annexed mediation and clear enforcement mechanisms will reduce case backlogs, easing pressure on courts.

  • Cultural Shift: Promoting ADR fosters a collaborative, dialogue-based approach to dispute resolution, aligning with Kenyan communal values.

  • Global Competitiveness: A robust ADR framework enhances Kenya’s attractiveness as a hub for dispute resolution, particularly for international commercial disputes.

Recommendations

  1. Public Awareness Campaigns: Invest in education to clarify distinctions between mediation, conciliation, and other ADR mechanisms.

  2. Resource Allocation: Ensure adequate funding for the NDRC and courts to implement the Bill effectively.

  3. Safeguarding Independence: Introduce mechanisms to limit executive influence over NDRC appointments.

  4. Flexibility in Accreditation: Balance strict standards with accessibility to avoid excluding smaller or community-based ADR bodies.

  5. Monitoring and Evaluation: Establish metrics to assess the Bill’s impact on case backlogs, resolution times, and public uptake of ADR.

Conclusion

The Dispute Resolution Bill, 2025, is a transformative step toward a more accessible, efficient, and people-centered justice system in Kenya. By institutionalizing mediation and conciliation, establishing the NDRC, and enforcing strict regulatory standards, the Bill addresses longstanding gaps in ADR practice. While challenges like resource constraints and potential overregulation remain, the Bill’s alignment with constitutional values and the National Policy on ADR positions it as a critical pillar for delivering justice. If effectively implemented, it will reduce court burdens, foster collaborative dispute resolution, and enhance access to justice for all Kenyans.

Access the Dispute Resolution Bill, 2025 here.