The Judiciary has called on Alternative Justice System (AJS) practitioners to ensure fairness in community-based dispute resolution, properly identify cases suitable for the process and seek formal court recognition of agreements reached outside court.
The call was made during the official launch of AJS Week at Makadara Law Courts, where judicial officers and stakeholders emphasised the need for training, public awareness and proper management of cases to strengthen the system and improve access to justice.
Justice James Wakiaga warned practitioners against acting like judges when helping communities resolve disputes, saying their role was to facilitate fair outcomes rather than make judgments on the parties involved.
He also stressed the importance of understanding which disputes qualify for resolution through AJS, noting that the system should not be used as an alternative to formal court proceedings in every case.
Participants were reminded that certain matters, including cases involving children and robbery with violence, would not be handled under the programme. The guidance was intended to ensure that disputes are directed to the appropriate legal channels.
Deputy Registrar at the AJS National Secretariat, Atieno Ogolla, said the week-long programme was designed to sensitise and train practitioners on how to identify cases that can be resolved through alternative justice mechanisms.
“The main aim is sensitisation and training. Let’s ensure that by the end of the week, we know the cases that are to be taken to AJS,” Ogolla said.
She further highlighted the need for reliable data collection to measure the system’s performance. Practitioners and other stakeholders were encouraged to track the number of disputes resolved through AJS, as well as cases referred to or handled at the community level.
The discussions also highlighted the potential of AJS to reduce the workload facing conventional courts. At Makadara Law Courts, stakeholders noted that approximately 50 per cent of the workload could potentially be handled through alternative mechanisms at the community level, provided the disputes meet the required criteria.
Resolving suitable disputes outside formal court proceedings could allow judicial officers to concentrate on matters requiring formal adjudication while giving communities additional ways to settle disagreements.
Wakiaga also addressed the need to ensure that agreements reached outside court are properly documented and recognised. Practitioners were encouraged to present such agreements for registration by the courts, where appropriate, particularly where parties later disagree over the terms or seek formal recognition of their settlement.
Training sessions during AJS Week are expected to guide practitioners on managing such situations and strengthening the relationship between community-based dispute resolution and the formal justice system.
The programme will also seek to identify and register trained AJS practitioners who have completed the required training but are not yet actively involved in the system.
As AJS Week continues, the Judiciary is emphasising clear guidelines, continuous training, proper case management, data collection and cooperation between community-based mechanisms and the courts.
The key message to practitioners is that AJS should not create informal judges within communities. Instead, it should provide a structured way of resolving suitable disputes fairly, ensuring that cases are handled through the appropriate channels and expanding access to justice.
