My Ssec Capstone Project UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI, SCHOOL OF LAW GPR 312 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION GROUP 2 NAME REGISTRATION NUMBERSIGNATUREOBANGE MILLICENT AG34/3042/2015IMALI JOY ASENAG34/3015/2015ESTHER MUTHEU MUTHIANIG34/3081/2015AGNES MUTHETHYA MUTIEG34/3006/2015ABUOR MARLENE BLESSINGG34/3077/2015LOISE WANGECI MACHARIAG34/3167/2015MERCY BOITG34/3035/2015JOAQUIM WANJALAG34/3152/2015NOAH RANDIEKG34/3055/2015KHALWALE DENNISG34/3157/2015 Declaration Form for Students UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI Declaration of Originality Form This form must be completed and signed for all works submitted to the University for examination. Name of Student ________________________________________________ Registration Number _____________________________________________ College _____________________________________________ Faculty/School/Institute___________________________________________ Department ____________________________________________________ Course Name __________________________________________________ Title of the work DECLARATION 1. I understand what Plagiarism is and I am aware of the Universitys policy in this regard 2. I declare that this __________________ (Thesis, project, essay, assignment, paper, report, etc) is my original work and has not been submitted elsewhere for examination, award of a degree or publication. Where other peoples work or my own work has been used, this has properly been acknowledged and referenced in accordance with the University of Nairobis requirements. 3. I have not sought or used the services of any professional agencies to produce this work 4. I have not allowed, and shall not allow anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his/her own work 5. I understand that any false claim in respect of this work shall result in disciplinary action, in accordance with University Plagiarism Policy. Signature _______________________________________________ Date _____________________________________ Table of Contents TOC o 1-3 h z u HYPERLINK l _Toc519736955 The Theoretical Basis and Background for ADR in Kenya. PAGEREF _Toc519736955 h 4 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736956 Theoretical basis of ADR. PAGEREF _Toc519736956 h 5 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736957 Background of ADR in Kenya PAGEREF _Toc519736957 h 6 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736958 Development of ADR in the Post-Colonial Era PAGEREF _Toc519736958 h 7 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736959 Conflict v Dispute Definition and Differentiation PAGEREF _Toc519736959 h 8 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736960 Key principles and values underpinning alternative non litigation processes of dispute resolution PAGEREF _Toc519736960 h 10 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736961 Voluntary Participation PAGEREF _Toc519736961 h 10 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736962 Confidentiality PAGEREF _Toc519736962 h 11 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736963 Informality PAGEREF _Toc519736963 h 11 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736964 Conformity to the law PAGEREF _Toc519736964 h 12 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736965 Appreciation of cultural contexts. PAGEREF _Toc519736965 h 13 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736966 Consent PAGEREF _Toc519736966 h Error Bookmark not defined. HYPERLINK l _Toc519736967 Promotion of human rights PAGEREF _Toc519736967 h 13 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736968 Good faith PAGEREF _Toc519736968 h 13 HYPERLINK l _Toc519736969 Bibliography PAGEREF _Toc519736969 h 14 The Theoretical Basis and Background for ADR in Kenya. Theoretical basis of ADR. In justifying the need to make investments in ADR as a legitimate avenue of administration of justice, it is prudent to go back to the very beginning the function that the law is supposed to serve in a society. One of the most significant functions of a legal system is the resolution of human conflict and in so doing, effectively facilitating a balance between competing interests through the administration of justice. The concept of justice has been debated by many scholars with a consensus that justice needs to ensure fairness, uphold individual rights and freedoms and maximize the welfare of a society. Access to justice therefore, as affirmed in the constitution, forms a fundamental basis for the execution of the mandate of the legal system. Access to justice as a concept is predicated on the following factors simplicity, affordability, effectiveness, expeditiousness and fairness. It is the inseparability of having recourse for protection of rights under substantive law without giving undue regard to procedural technicalities that allows justice to not only be done but be seen to be done. The ideal of equality before the law suggests that the legal system should effectively break down the barriers that keep marginalized individuals from having their day in court, and it is this access that lends the law its legitimacy. Our legal system, an inherited relic of Western imperialism, emphasizes litigation as the most legitimate method of dispute resolution. Whether this modern legal system has served the interests of society at large is questionable. Dissatisfaction has been expressed by the society and this dissatisfaction has been put forth by scholars as sufficient justification of the need to explore and legitimize other avenues. Some of the failings as expressed by Derek Bok are that the court procedures and long and expensive with the effect being that poor and middle class persons have been closed off from accessing justice. He proposes that the purpose of the law be reconsidered in order to emphasize the fact that law must work for the entire population, and that insisting on formal litigation will continue to entrench the same problems. Roscoe Pound bemoans the fact that there are problems inherent to every legal system that can be obviated but not eliminated. He proposes further that the legal profession should carry out research into the philosophy of law in order to rework it to fill the gaps causing dissatisfaction in the administration of justice. As a tool for social order, the law cannot effectively contemplate all the nuances of social conflict. This then means that the demands on a judicial system will only get heavier as we innovate new ways of being and living with increasing populations. The judicial system as is does not have the capacity to respond to these needs. The law and its application therefore need to fulfill its ultimate purpose a synthesized compromise of competing interests that work and can be seen to work. ADR comes in to cure the rigidity of formal litigation by offering arguably faster, cheaper, more effective means of amicably resolving conflict. The expansion of dispute resolution mechanisms to legitimize ADR is less a revolutionary process than a long-awaited evolutionary process. It is not a re-inventing of the wheel, especially in the Kenyan context, where an imposed paternalistic modern state supplanted the communal ways of being that were governed by laws mutually acquiesced to. It is evolutionary in that it is a logical step forward into a society that recognizes culture as the foundation of a nation and prioritizes the needs of its people. Background of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Kenya Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the Pre-Colonial Era Disputes have existed as long society has. Societies have therefore had to develop ways of resolving these disputes. The methods that guide each society vary depending on factors such as cultural, socio-economic and political organization of the society. Kenyan societies were communal. Families were the basic unit on which higher groupings were formed such as clans. The economic and social well-being of the community was grounded on mutual dependence and distribution of resources. It is for this reason that it was in the interests of the community that disputes be resolved in a manner fostering peaceful co-existence. The methods of dispute resolution therefore had to be restorative in nature as opposed to merely retributive. Some of these dispute resolution methods included negotiation, conciliation, and mediation. These methods, although they might not have been referred to as such were applied in processes such as family or community meetings, council of elders sitting, riika relations among others. Councils of elders featured in most Kenyan communities because they were considered the custodians of community wisdom and were therefore best suited to act as third parties in the resolution of conflict. The methods they employed are what are now referred to as Traditional Dispute Resolution Methods. The advent of the white man, first as explorers and missionaries and later as colonial masters, was an interruption of the traditional, customary, political and legal process of Africans. The declaration of Kenya as a protectorate was done in order to facilitate the exploitation of resources by the Imperial British Company. Settlers were encouraged to occupy the highlands. One of the incentives offered to them was private land ownership intended to maximize productivity. This private ownership of land brought about the need to protect individual rights. This concept was not consistent with our communal way of living and thus expanded the types of disputes within the colony. The British colonial masters imposed their own systems of courts which supplanted the existing methods of dispute resolution. In order to legitimize their occupation of land and facilitate these new forms of property ownership, they introduced the common laws of England and imposed their own systems of resolving disputes in the form of courts. Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms were relegated to solving informal suits considered not important enough to go to litigation and even then, the outcomes of disputes resolved by TDRMs could be appealed in court. The effect of this was to entrench the misconception that all other methods other than litigation were inferior, ineffective and undesirable. Development of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Post-Colonial Era Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms were largely applied during the pre-colonial period. They were also carried forward to the post-colonial era. The government of the day however, did not do much to promote these methods as the country largely focused on the court system. In essence, the government also relied heavily on the provincial administration to do quasi-judicial and administrative work, including resolving conflicts and disputes. The chiefs for example, played and still play a huge role in mediation which earned them the tag kangaroo courts. However, the country made strides in formalizing arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution by enacting the first Arbitration Act in 1968. This Act generally laid an overview of the courts intervention in arbitration. This Act was repealed and replaced by the Arbitration Act of 1995. This act restricted the courts intervention as stipulated in section 10. This Act was amended vide the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2009 . The highlight of the development of ADR was August 2010 that saw the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya. Article 159 of the Constitution provides that the judiciary is to be guided by several principles in the course of discharging its mandate. However, just as in the judicature Act 1897 that states that African customary law shall govern in civil cases in which one or more of the parties is subject to it or affected by it, so far as it is applicable and is not repugnant to justice and morality or inconsistent with any written law, the constitution equally has a repugnancy clause in Article 159(3), which is almost similar to that in Article 2(4). It can therefore be concluded that in as much as the Constitution of Kenya promotes ADR mechanisms in order to promote the access to justice as stipulated in Article 48 of the Constitution, these mechanisms have limitations in their applicability. The Constitution further advocates for the use of ADR in settling intergovernmental disputes in Article 189(4). In addition to the Constitution of Kenya and the Arbitration act, the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act provides that the court may adopt and implement on its own motion or at the request of the parties, any other appropriate means of dispute resolution including conciliation, mediation and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms in accordance with Article 159(2) (c) of the Constitution. Further to this, Sections 59, 59B and 59C of the Civil Procedure Act give the court jurisdiction to refer any dispute to ADR mechanisms where parties have agreed or where the court considers it appropriate. The Civil Procedure Rules of 2010 also advocate for the use of alternative dispute resolution methods. Order 40 Rule (6) states that where all parties agree, the court has jurisdiction to refer any matter in difference between the parties to arbitration. The Labour Relations Act also advocates for settlement of disputes between parties through mediation by a conciliator who is to be appointed by the Cabinet Secretary. Section 36(1) of The Media Council Act 2013 states that, the chairperson of the Complaints Commission may appoint one of the members of the Commission as a mediator, to attempt to facilitate an early voluntary settlement of the dispute between the parties to the dispute. These statutes are examples of laws that provide for the use of ADR mechanisms in solving disputes, thus promoting the access to justice and the expeditious resolution of disputes and conflicts. It is evident that Kenya has gradually embraced ADR since independence and can be said to be at its peak at the moment since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution. Conflict v Dispute Definition and Differentiation The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a conflict as a mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands. A dispute is defined in the Cambridge English Dictionary as anargumentordisagreement. In order to better understand why conflict and disputes exist and how to settle or resolve them, it is essential that we understand the difference between these two terms and avoid using them interchangeably. There is no one universally agreed upon definition of the word conflict. Different academics have different definitions of the term. Dr. Kariuki Muigua defines conflict as any situation in which two or more parties (however defined or structured) perceive that they possess mutually incompatible goals Timothy Keator defines it as a long-term disagreement with deeply-rooted issues that are seen as non-negotiable. Dr. Kariuki Muigua gives a tripartite view of conflict, stating that all conflicts are essentially created out of goal incompatibility, attitudes and behaviour. Goal incompatibility is the starting point of all conflict, in which actors or parties think that the realisation of one of their objectives is blocked by the other partys attempt to reach its own goals. He defines attitudes in conflict as those psychological states that accompany and arise from involvement in a situation of conflict and conflict behaviour as actions undertaken by one party in any situation of conflict aimed at the opposing party with the intention of making that opponent abandon or modify its goals. A dispute has been defined as a short-term disagreement that can result in the disputants reaching some sort of resolution. While conflicts are about needs and values, disputes are essentially about interests or issues that are finite and divisible and therefore negotiable. This is because interests and issues are superficial. They do not go to the root of the conflict. As a result, disputes are merely settled while conflicts are resolved hence the terms settlement of disputes and resolution of conflicts. Settlement, according to Dr. Kariuki Muigua, is an agreement over the issues of a conflict and often involves a compromise. Settlement is power-based. Conflict resolution, on the other hand, is a process whose outcome is based on mutual problem-sharing with the conflicting parties co-operating in order to redefine their conflict and their relationship. Unlike settlement, conflict resolution is non-power based, aiming at the mutual satisfaction of each partys needs. The essential difference between the terms conflict and dispute is the duration of the disagreement and the issues in contention. Where the disagreement is short-term and the issues in contention are negotiable, it is a dispute and relevant dispute settlement mechanisms can be applied. Where the disagreement is long-term and the issues in contention are so deep-seated as to be non-negotiable, it is a conflict and relevant resolution mechanisms should be applied. Key principles and values underpinning alternative non litigation processes of dispute resolution For justice to be served, principles and values underpinning the practice of alternative and non-litigation methods of resolving disputes must be adhered to. These principles to a great extent play the regulatory role to the practice of non-ligation methods of resolving conflict and include the following Voluntary Participation Unlike litigation, non-litigation processes of dispute resolution such as alternative dispute resolution and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms are for the most part party driven processes. Ideally, all the parties should be willing to go through this process without coercion or without some form of mandatory requirement for them to go through the non-litigation process. The court held in the case of Hasley v Milton Keynes It is one thing to encourage the parties to agree to mediation, even to encourage them in the strongest terms. It is another to order them to do so. It seems to us that to oblige truly unwilling parties to refer their disputes to mediation would be to impose an unacceptable obstruction on their right of access to the court. The consent must be unanimous. Despite this being a fundamental principle in the non-litigation process of dispute resolution in Kenya, there has been a major shift of this requirement majorly propelled by the judiciary in Kenya through the Court-annexed mediation. The Judiciary in Kenya has introduced mediation that is sanctioned by the court to compel parties to enter into negotiations with the assistance of a mediator in the hope that the parties will reach an amicable settlement between or among themselves without the courts intervention and the settlement adopted in court as a judgment. The law now requires the court either at the request of the parties, where it deems so or where the law provides so, to refer a dispute presented before it to mediation. This threatens the principle of voluntary participation because of the compulsion factor by the courts. Nevertheless, there are still parties that prefer private negotiation and mediation and the voluntary participation of the parties is a key factor in determining the success or lack thereof of the process. Confidentiality Confidentiality refers to something that has the quality of being secret or privileged. In the context of non-litigation processes of dispute resolution, confidentiality refers to the non-disclosure and discreteness of information and proceedings of the different processes. Confidentiality of the proceedings in a non-litigation process of dispute resolution is fundamental because it is an important aspect of acting in good faith. Some of the exchanges during the ADR processes could be very personal. It also encourages meaningful participation and frank discussions between or among the parties about the issues in the dispute and can assist in narrowing of the issues in a hope that the parties reach a settlement in the case of mediation or negotiation or that the final award given in arbitration proceedings considers that information. Information given during alternative dispute resolution cannot be used as evidence in a court of law or during any other forum. There is a natural desire to safeguard ones legal position from being attacked or watered down by virtue of something they did in an effort to amicably resolve a dispute should the matter still end up in court. Confidentiality is desirable to protect any proprietary information or competitive advantage disclosed in order to resolve a dispute in good faith. This may include trade secrets and patent information. The requirement of confidentiality is however not without exception. The ADR practitioner is required to disclose any criminal information disclosed to them in the course of the proceedings. Crimes in their nature and definition are offences against the state and the practitioner has an obligation to disclose any such matters as may be disclosed to them in the course of proceedings. Informality Non-litigation processes of dispute resolution are largely informal, in the sense that there are no strict rules and regulations in terms of conducting the proceedings.There are also no strict rules as regards what to what documents are admissible as evidence and what are not. The rules of evidence are not really taken into consideration in their totality. The rationale behind having such sense of informality and flexibility is to encourage the parties to participate in the resolution of the dispute without the burden of procedural technicalities that burden litigation as a method of dispute resolution. This makes the processes user friendly. Some scholars argue that the formal-informal debate exist only in relation to one another. This is in the sense that without formal law ADR and TDRMS are not alternative at all. As Analise Riles put it, , the decisions of alternative dispute resolution forums usually depend on the powers of the state and its formal legal machineries for ultimate enforcement. Yet it is also true in the more subtle and discursive senses in which both formal and informal approaches garner their authority and legitimacy from the implicit or explicit comparisons which they effectuate on each other. She then says that the aspect of formal and informal should be looked as at genres of expertise. This in a sense puts away the whole competition between non-litigation processes of dispute resolution and litigation. Conformity to the law When there are disputes, member of society expect that the said disputes will be settled objectively and peacefully in accordance with predefined rules and procedures. This expectation presupposes that whichever system of dispute resolution the parties resort to must serve the ends of justice. To this end, the form of ADR that parties choose to employ must be weighed against constitutional safeguards to ensure conformity to the existing legal framework. Article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution provides that in exercising judicial authority, the courts and tribunals shall be guided by certain principles. One of these principles is that alternative forms of dispute resolution including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms shall be promoted provided that they do not contravene the Bill of Rights, they are not repugnant to justice and morality or result to outcomes that are repugnant to justice or morality and if they are not inconsistent with the constitution or any written law. For instance, in arbitration, an arbitrator cannot give an award that contravenes the rights of either party as envisioned in the bill of rights. The process must also be seen to be fair and impartial. However, while ensuring conformity with the law, there must be a live consciousness to avoid undue regard to procedural technicalities that bedevil the court system since the alternative mechanisms are informal. Appreciation of cultural contexts Unlike litigation, ADR mechanisms seek the mutual gain of all parties. They also get to the root causes of the conflict between the parties and aim at post conflict relationships. To achieve their aim, ADR mechanisms strive to appreciate the cultural context of the disputing parties. They appreciate family ties and kinship relations, respect shared by parties and sense of community obligation. Promotion of human rights Any ADR mechanism employed should promote human rights. All parties to a dispute should be fully informed of the process, their rights during the process and the possible end results of the process. ADR mechanisms all serve one end attaining justice. Access to justice is one of the most critical human rights and forms a basis for the enjoyment of other human rights. The promotion of human rights is therefore a principle that is foundational to any non litigation process. These processes should not be used as an escape route from the litigation process where rights are highly upheld. Good faith This applies to all the parties involved in the ADR process. The parties involved in the dispute must act in good faith in a bid to reach an amicable solution. It is a principle that goes along with the principles of natural justice. Any third party brought in to help resolve the dispute must not show bias or disinterest in the matter at hand. Any interactions by either of the parties with the neutral third party should be done with the knowledge of the other. All these point out towards the principle of good faith. When a person is approached for appointment as an arbitrator, he must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. Bibliography Access to Justice Advisory Committee Sackville Ronald, Access to Justice An Action Plan, Australian Govt., Publishing Service, Canberra 1994 Arbitration Act, 2012 Bok D, A Flawed System of Law and Practice and Training 33 J. Legal Education Chepkoech C, The Applicability of Traditional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Criminal Cases in Kenya, Strathmore University 2017 Civil Procedure Act Constitution of Kenya, 2010 C W, The Rule of Law New Reflections on an Old Doctrine, (East African Journal of Peace and Human Rights) Industrial Court Act, 2011 John R, A Theory of Justice, (Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971) Judicature Act Kariuki F, Conflict Resolution by Elders in Africa Successes, Challenges and Opportunities (Alternative Dispute Resolution Journal) ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDNkpvrsBx,propertiesformattedCitationTimothy D Keator, uc0u8216Conflict vs Disputeuc0u8217,plainCitationTimothy D Keator, Conflict vs Dispute,noteIndex1,citationItemsid971,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,itemDataid971,typearticle,titleConflict vs Dispute,authorfamilyKeator,givenTimothy D.,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Keator T, Conflict vs Dispute Kenyatta J, Facing Mt. Kenya The Tribal Life of the Gikuyu, (Vintage Books, New York, 1965) Labour Relations Act No. 14 of 2007 Muigua K, -ADR, Access to Justice and Development in Kenya -Resolving Conflicts Though Mediation in Kenya, (Glenwood Publishing Nairobi, 2012) -The Arbitration Acts A Review of The Arbitration Act, 1995 of Kenya Visa-viz Arbitration Act of 1996 of United Kingdom 1995 Muigua K, Francis K, ADR, Access to Justice and Development in Kenya Moses M, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, (Cambridge University Press) 2008 Pound R, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice- Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Bar Association, 29 ABA Report, 1906 Rhode D, Access to Justice, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 69, 2001 ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDONI1FEYs,propertiesformattedCitationAnnelise Riles, uc0u8216User Friendly Informality and Expertise Commentaryuc0u8217 (2002) 27 Law Social Inquiry 613.,plainCitationAnnelise Riles, User Friendly Informality and Expertise Commentary (2002) 27 Law Social Inquiry 613.,noteIndex15,citationItemsid680,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/5GY7IN4U,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/5GY7IN4U,itemDataid680,typearticle-journal,titleUser Friendly Informality and Expertise Commentary,container-titleLaw Social Inquiry,page613-619,volume27,issue3,sourceJSTOR,ISSN0897-6546,shortTitleUser Friendly,authorfamilyRiles,givenAnnelise,issueddate-parts2002,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Riles A, User Friendly Informality and Expertise Commentary (2002) 27 Law Social Inquiry. R v Sussex Justices Ex parte McCarthy 1924 1 KB 256 ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDoMPONeYR,propertiesformattedCitationJeffrey M Senger, uc0u8216Federal Dispute Resolution Using ADR with the United States Governmentuc0u8217 1.,plainCitationJeffrey M Senger, Federal Dispute Resolution Using ADR with the United States Government 1.,noteIndex14,citationItemsid679,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/UUZIH5SC,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/UUZIH5SC,itemDataid679,typearticle-journal,titleFederal Dispute Resolution Using ADR with the United States Government,page1,sourceZotero,languageen,authorfamilySenger,givenJeffrey M,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Senger J, Federal Dispute Resolution Using ADR with the United States Government. Rawls John, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971 Article 48, Constitution of Kenya, 2010 Muigua K, Francis K, ADR, Access to Justice and Development in Kenya at 7 R v Sussex Justices Ex parte McCarthy 1924 1 KB 256 Access to Justice Advisory Committee Sackville Ronald, Access to Justice An Action Plan, Australian Govt. Publishing Service, Canberra 1994 Derek Bok, A Flawed System of Law and Practice and Training 33 J.Leg Educ 570 Ibid Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice- Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Bar Association, 29 ABA Report 1 395-417, 1906 Article 11,Constitution of Kenya, 2010 F. Kariuki, Conflict Resolution by Elders in Africa Successes, Challenges and Opportunities Alternative Dispute Resolution Journal Vol 3 Issue 2 pp 30-53, 2015 Muigua Kariuki, Resolving Conflicts Through Mediation in Kenya, Glenwood Publishing, Nairobi, 2012, pp27-32 Kenyatta Jomo, Facing Mt. Kenya The Tribal Life of the Gikuyu, Vintage Books, New York, 1965, pp 253-258 HYPERLINK https//www.khrc.or.ke/2015-03-04-10-37-01/blog/428-provincial-administration-stifles-ministries-departments-and-agencies-mdas.html https//www.khrc.or.ke/2015-03-04-10-37-01/blog/428-provincial-administration-stifles-ministries-departments-and-agencies-mdas.html accessed 17th July 2018 ibid Muigua , K., The Arbitration Acts A Review of The Arbitration Act, 1995 of Kenya Visa-viz Arbitration Act of 1996 of United Kingdom, 1, 1995 Arbitration Act Chepkoech C, The Applicability of Traditional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Criminal Cases in Kenya, Strathmore University at 10,2017 ibid Judicature Act, Section 3(2) Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Section 15(1) 2011 Civil Procedure Act Kariuki Muigua, ADR, Access to Justice and Development in Kenya, 6 Labour Relations Act No. 14 of 2007, Section 65(1) ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDNkpvrsBx,propertiesformattedCitationTimothy D Keator, uc0u8216Conflict vs Disputeuc0u8217,plainCitationTimothy D Keator, Conflict vs Dispute,noteIndex1,citationItemsid971,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,itemDataid971,typearticle,titleConflict vs Dispute,authorfamilyKeator,givenTimothy D.,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Timothy D Keator, Conflict vs Dispute ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDjdq4o4Rx,propertiesformattedCitationKariuki Muigua, iAlternative Dispute Resolution and Acces to Justice in Kenya (Glenwood Publishers 2015) 1.,plainCitationKariuki Muigua, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Acces to Justice in Kenya (Glenwood Publishers 2015) 1.,noteIndex2,citationItemsid968,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/MPMIPWTV,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/MPMIPWTV,itemDataid968,typebook,titleAlternative Dispute Resolution and Acces to Justice in Kenya,publisherGlenwood Publishers,authorfamilyMuigua,givenKariuki,issueddate-parts2015,locator1,labelpage,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Kariuki Muigua, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Acces to Justice in Kenya (Glenwood Publishers 2015) 1. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDG6iimEBV,propertiesformattedCitationKeator (n 1).,plainCitationKeator (n 1).,noteIndex3,citationItemsid971,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,itemDataid971,typearticle,titleConflict vs Dispute,authorfamilyKeator,givenTimothy D.,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Keator (n 14). ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDWYZyLKbS,propertiesformattedCitationMuigua (n 2) 2.,plainCitationMuigua (n 2) 2.,noteIndex4,citationItemsid968,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/MPMIPWTV,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/MPMIPWTV,itemDataid968,typebook,titleAlternative Dispute Resolution and Acces to Justice in Kenya,publisherGlenwood Publishers,authorfamilyMuigua,givenKariuki,issueddate-parts2015,locator2,labelpage,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Muigua (n 15) 2. ibid ibid ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationID2LsDTMGH,propertiesformattedCitationKeator (n 1).,plainCitationKeator (n 1).,noteIndex7,citationItemsid971,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,itemDataid971,typearticle,titleConflict vs Dispute,authorfamilyKeator,givenTimothy D.,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Keator (n 14). ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDTgH46k2H,propertiesformattedCitationMuigua (n 2) 5.,plainCitationMuigua (n 2) 5.,noteIndex8,citationItemsid968,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/MPMIPWTV,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/MPMIPWTV,itemDataid968,typebook,titleAlternative Dispute Resolution and Acces to Justice in Kenya,publisherGlenwood Publishers,authorfamilyMuigua,givenKariuki,issueddate-parts2015,locator5,labelpage,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Muigua (n 15) 5. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDfM8GgGoh,propertiesformattedCitationKeator (n 1).,plainCitationKeator (n 1).,noteIndex9,citationItemsid971,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/IFX6S7CT,itemDataid971,typearticle,titleConflict vs Dispute,authorfamilyKeator,givenTimothy D.,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Keator (n 14). ibid ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDrLX3reLI,propertiesformattedCitationMuigua (n 2) 10.,plainCitationMuigua (n 2) 10.,noteIndex11,citationItemsid968,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/MPMIPWTV,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/MPMIPWTV,itemDataid968,typebook,titleAlternative Dispute Resolution and Acces to Justice in Kenya,publisherGlenwood Publishers,authorfamilyMuigua,givenKariuki,issueddate-parts2015,locator10,labelpage,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Muigua (n 15) 10. ibid ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationID2682wl40,propertiesformattedCitationcorissajoy, uc0u8216Conflicts and Disputesuc0u8217 (iBeyond Intractability, 28 June 2016) https//www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflicts_disputes accessed 18 July 2018.,plainCitationcorissajoy, Conflicts and Disputes (Beyond Intractability, 28 June 2016) https//www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflicts_disputes accessed 18 July 2018.,noteIndex13,citationItemsid973,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/KZB9F2YV,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2347618/items/KZB9F2YV,itemDataid973,typewebpage,titleConflicts and Disputes,container-titleBeyond Intractability,genreText,abstractThis article explains the difference and why it matters–you cant address conflicts the same way you resolve disputes.,URLhttps//www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflicts_disputes,languageen,authorfamilycorissajoy,given,issueddate-parts2016,6,28,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json corissajoy, Conflicts and Disputes (Beyond Intractability, 28 June 2016) https//www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflicts_disputes accessed 18 July 2018. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDG0pnCboa,propertiesformattedCitationFasken-Christine P Tabbert and David Halasz, uc0u8216Alternative Dispute Resolution Lexologyuc0u8217 https//www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspxgbee0559f-935a-4a8e-9cc7-02c7024adb31 accessed 18 July 2018.,plainCitationFasken-Christine P Tabbert and David Halasz, Alternative Dispute Resolution Lexology https//www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspxgbee0559f-935a-4a8e-9cc7-02c7024adb31 accessed 18 July 2018.,noteIndex1,citationItemsid646,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/67X2YP6D,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/67X2YP6D,itemDataid646,typewebpage,titleAlternative dispute resolution Lexology,abstractThis latest bulletin in our series introduces a concept that not that long ago would have been considered by some to be a topic that did not necessarily relate to civil litigation alternative dispute resolution, or ADR.,URLhttps//www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspxgbee0559f-935a-4a8e-9cc7-02c7024adb31,languageen,authorfamilyTabbert,givenFasken-Christine P.,familyHalasz,givenDavid,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Fasken-Christine P Tabbert and David Halasz, Alternative Dispute Resolution Lexology https//www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspxgbee0559f-935a-4a8e-9cc7-02c7024adb31 accessed 18 July 2018. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDPZXyn8iR,propertiesformattedCitationJouc0u227o Pedro Pinto-Ferreira, uc0u8216Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust 2004 EWCA Civ 576 (11 May 2004)uc0u8217 20.,plainCitationJoo Pedro Pinto-Ferreira, Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust 2004 EWCA Civ 576 (11 May 2004) 20.,noteIndex2,citationItemsid659,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/7HGC7CQR,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/7HGC7CQR,itemDataid659,typearticle-journal,titleHalsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust 2004 EWCA Civ 576 (11 May 2004),page20,sourceZotero,languageen,authorfamilyPinto-Ferreira,givenJoo Pedro,issueddate-parts2004,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Joo Pedro Pinto-Ferreira, Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust 2004 EWCA Civ 576 (11 May 2004) 20. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDswEvvevm,propertiesformattedCitationuc0u8216Court-Annexed-Mediation-at-the-Judiciary-of-Kenya..Pdfuc0u8217 http//kenyalaw.org/kenyalawblog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Court-Annexed-Mediation-at-the-Judiciary-of-Kenya..pdf accessed 18 July 2018.,plainCitationCourt-Annexed-Mediation-at-the-Judiciary-of-Kenya..Pdf http//kenyalaw.org/kenyalawblog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Court-Annexed-Mediation-at-the-Judiciary-of-Kenya..pdf accessed 18 July 2018.,noteIndex3,citationItemsid660,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/87N97UDN,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/87N97UDN,itemDataid660,typearticle,titleCourt-Annexed-Mediation-at-the-Judiciary-of-Kenya..pdf,URLhttp//kenyalaw.org/kenyalawblog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Court-Annexed-Mediation-at-the-Judiciary-of-Kenya..pdf,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Court-Annexed-Mediation-at-the-Judiciary-of-Kenya…Pdfhttp//kenyalaw.org/kenyalawblog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Court-Annexed-Mediation-at-the-Judiciary-of-Kenya..pdf accessed 18 July 2018. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDtOhvllZ9,propertiesformattedCitationuc0u8216CIVIL PROCEDURE ACTuc0u8217 s 59b http//webcache.googleusercontent.com/searchqcacheSsQUERKmhQwJkenyalaw.org/lex/rest//db/kenyalex/Kenya/Legislation/English/Acts2520and2520Regulations/C/Civil2520Procedure2520Act2520Cap.2520212520-2520No.252032520of25201924/docs/CiviProcedureAct3of1924.pdfcd1hlenctclnkglke accessed 18 July 2018.,plainCitationCIVIL PROCEDURE ACT s 59b http//webcache.googleusercontent.com/searchqcacheSsQUERKmhQwJkenyalaw.org/lex/rest//db/kenyalex/Kenya/Legislation/English/Acts2520and2520Regulations/C/Civil2520Procedure2520Act2520Cap.2520212520-2520No.252032520of25201924/docs/CiviProcedureAct3of1924.pdfcd1hlenctclnkglke accessed 18 July 2018.,noteIndex4,citationItemsid662,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/UYT5E3FS,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/UYT5E3FS,itemDataid662,typewebpage,titleCIVIL PROCEDURE ACT,URLhttp//webcache.googleusercontent.com/searchqcacheSsQUERKmhQwJkenyalaw.org/lex/rest//db/kenyalex/Kenya/Legislation/English/Acts2520and2520Regulations/C/Civil2520Procedure2520Act2520Cap.2520212520-2520No.252032520of25201924/docs/CiviProcedureAct3of1924.pdfcd1hlenctclnkglke,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,locator59b,labelsection,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json CIVILPROCEDUREACTs59bhttp//webcache.googleusercontent.com/searchqcacheSsQUERKmhQwJkenyalaw.org/lex/rest//db/kenyalex/Kenya/Legislation/English/Acts2520and2520Regulations/C/Civil2520Procedure2520Act2520Cap.2520212520-2520No.252032520of25201924/docs/CiviProcedureAct3of1924.pdfcd1hlenctclnkglke accessed 18 July 2018. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDnNAYo28J,propertiesformattedCitationuc0u8216What Is CONFIDENTIALITY Definition of CONFIDENTIALITY (Blackuc0u8217s Law Dictionary)uc0u8217 (iThe Law Dictionary, 28 March 2013) https//thelawdictionary.org/confidentiality/ accessed 18 July 2018.,plainCitationWhat Is CONFIDENTIALITY Definition of CONFIDENTIALITY (Blacks Law Dictionary) (The Law Dictionary, 28 March 2013) https//thelawdictionary.org/confidentiality/ accessed 18 July 2018.,noteIndex5,citationItemsid664,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/DRHE8LVI,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/DRHE8LVI,itemDataid664,typewebpage,titleWhat is CONFIDENTIALITY definition of CONFIDENTIALITY (Blacks Law Dictionary),container-titleThe Law Dictionary,abstractDefinition of CONFIDENTIALITY the term that applies to something that has the quality of being confidential, secret or,URLhttps//thelawdictionary.org/confidentiality/,shortTitleWhat is CONFIDENTIALITY,languageen-US,issueddate-parts2013,3,28,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json What Is CONFIDENTIALITY Definition of CONFIDENTIALITY (Blacks Law Dictionary) (The Law Dictionary, 28 March 2013) https//thelawdictionary.org/confidentiality/ accessed 18 July 2018. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDUJ0TEaLa,propertiesformattedCitation83 Clarence Street corporateNameAdministrative Appeals Tribunal addressLevel 6, uc0u8216Confidentiality in ADR Processesuc0u8217 http//www.aat.gov.au/steps-in-a-review/alternative-dispute-resolution/confidentiality-in-adr-processes accessed 18 July 2018.,plainCitation83 Clarence Street corporateNameAdministrative Appeals Tribunal addressLevel 6, Confidentiality in ADR Processes http//www.aat.gov.au/steps-in-a-review/alternative-dispute-resolution/confidentiality-in-adr-processes accessed 18 July 2018.,noteIndex6,citationItemsid666,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/8CJNL7AT,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/8CJNL7AT,itemDataid666,typewebpage,titleConfidentiality in ADR Processes,abstractInformation about confidentiality in ADR processes in the AAT.,URLhttp//www.aat.gov.au/steps-in-a-review/alternative-dispute-resolution/confidentiality-in-adr-processes,languageen,authorfamilyAppeals Tribunal addressLevel 6,given83 Clarence Street,non-dropping-particlecorporateNameAdministrative,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json 83 Clarence Street corporateNameAdministrative Appeals Tribunal addressLevel 6, Confidentiality in ADR Processes http//www.aat.gov.au/steps-in-a-review/alternative-dispute-resolution/confidentiality-in-adr-processes accessed 18 July 2018. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDKtHFbnxG,propertiesformattedCitationibid.,plainCitationibid.,noteIndex7,citationItemsid666,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/8CJNL7AT,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/8CJNL7AT,itemDataid666,typewebpage,titleConfidentiality in ADR Processes,abstractInformation about confidentiality in ADR processes in the AAT.,URLhttp//www.aat.gov.au/steps-in-a-review/alternative-dispute-resolution/confidentiality-in-adr-processes,languageen,authorfamilyAppeals Tribunal addressLevel 6,given83 Clarence Street,non-dropping-particlecorporateNameAdministrative,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json ibid. ibid ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDMRYFSwAT,propertiesformattedCitationcorporateNameAdministrative Appeals Tribunal addressLevel 6 (n 6).,plainCitationcorporateNameAdministrative Appeals Tribunal addressLevel 6 (n 6).,noteIndex9,citationItemsid666,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/8CJNL7AT,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/8CJNL7AT,itemDataid666,typewebpage,titleConfidentiality in ADR Processes,abstractInformation about confidentiality in ADR processes in the AAT.,URLhttp//www.aat.gov.au/steps-in-a-review/alternative-dispute-resolution/confidentiality-in-adr-processes,languageen,authorfamilyAppeals Tribunal addressLevel 6,given83 Clarence Street,non-dropping-particlecorporateNameAdministrative,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json corporateNameAdministrative Appeals Tribunal addressLevel 6 (n 6). ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDY1fCSGUq,propertiesformattedCitationuc0u8216The Foxgate Case uc0u8211 Good Faith Confidentiality – LawShelf Educational Mediauc0u8217 https//lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/the-foxgate-case-good-faith-confidentiality accessed 18 July 2018.,plainCitationThe Foxgate Case Good Faith Confidentiality – LawShelf Educational Media https//lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/the-foxgate-case-good-faith-confidentiality accessed 18 July 2018.,noteIndex10,citationItemsid670,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/XPRY6FK6,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/XPRY6FK6,itemDataid670,typewebpage,titleThe Foxgate Case Good Faith Confidentiality – LawShelf Educational Media,URLhttps//lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/the-foxgate-case-good-faith-confidentiality,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json The Foxgate Case Good Faith Confidentiality – LawShelf Educational Media https//lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/the-foxgate-case-good-faith-confidentiality accessed 18 July 2018. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDOo0wnpGr,propertiesformattedCitationuc0u8216Alternative Dispute Resolution Process ADR Process Informal Legal Proceeding Avoid Litigationuc0u8217 http//www.resolutionremedies.com/adr_process.asp accessed 18 July 2018.,plainCitationAlternative Dispute Resolution Process ADR Process Informal Legal Proceeding Avoid Litigation http//www.resolutionremedies.com/adr_process.asp accessed 18 July 2018.,noteIndex13,citationItemsid676,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/SPGNZUUA,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/SPGNZUUA,itemDataid676,typewebpage,titleAlternative Dispute Resolution Process ADR Process Informal Legal Proceeding Avoid Litigation,URLhttp//www.resolutionremedies.com/adr_process.asp,accesseddate-parts2018,7,18,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Alternative Dispute Resolution Process ADR Process Informal Legal Proceeding Avoid Litigation http//www.resolutionremedies.com/adr_process.asp accessed 18 July 2018. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDoMPONeYR,propertiesformattedCitationJeffrey M Senger, uc0u8216Federal Dispute Resolution Using ADR with the United States Governmentuc0u8217 1.,plainCitationJeffrey M Senger, Federal Dispute Resolution Using ADR with the United States Government 1.,noteIndex14,citationItemsid679,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/UUZIH5SC,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/UUZIH5SC,itemDataid679,typearticle-journal,titleFederal Dispute Resolution Using ADR with the United States Government,page1,sourceZotero,languageen,authorfamilySenger,givenJeffrey M,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Jeffrey M Senger, Federal Dispute Resolution Using ADR with the United States Government, 1. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationIDONI1FEYs,propertiesformattedCitationAnnelise Riles, uc0u8216User Friendly Informality and Expertise Commentaryuc0u8217 (2002) 27 Law Social Inquiry 613.,plainCitationAnnelise Riles, User Friendly Informality and Expertise Commentary (2002) 27 Law Social Inquiry 613.,noteIndex15,citationItemsid680,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/5GY7IN4U,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/5GY7IN4U,itemDataid680,typearticle-journal,titleUser Friendly Informality and Expertise Commentary,container-titleLaw Social Inquiry,page613-619,volume27,issue3,sourceJSTOR,ISSN0897-6546,shortTitleUser Friendly,authorfamilyRiles,givenAnnelise,issueddate-parts2002,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Annelise Riles, User Friendly Informality and Expertise Commentary (2002) 27 Law Social Inquiry 613. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION citationID4cMHB8PA,propertiesformattedCitationibid 615.,plainCitationibid 615.,noteIndex16,citationItemsid680,urishttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/5GY7IN4U,urihttp//zotero.org/users/2350060/items/5GY7IN4U,itemDataid680,typearticle-journal,titleUser Friendly Informality and Expertise Commentary,container-titleLaw Social Inquiry,page613-619,volume27,issue3,sourceJSTOR,ISSN0897-6546,shortTitleUser Friendly,authorfamilyRiles,givenAnnelise,issueddate-parts2002,locator615,schemahttps//github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json Riles (n 40) 615. Whitford W.C, The Rule of Law New Reflections on an Old Doctrine, (East African Journal of Peace and Human Rights) pp. 159-161 Kariuki Muigua, Legitimizing Alternative Dispute Resolution in Kenya Towards a Policy and Legal Framework Constitution of Kenya 2010, Article 159 (2) (c) ibid Deborah L. Rhode, Access to Justice, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 69, 2001. pp. 1785-1819 Arbitration Act 2012, Section 13 PAGE MERGEFORMAT 5 4 36Ec IS4(aarvu-/IYiJ C(KyW/exKJmV cj b WUjN2AjVN82Bnl NjYUl)x gxMz4W_UawQF)DVVv_FlThfW(xlf0 v1b_JczayM9Ta.5PEuos
pd KG
Q0EvRgJPVdjX4q Zt4bjwCYARlu_RuVUDwM6WAh4OnK SZfv7nsGSqeV4dri
[email protected]/sW4G F(4Mj4U1ox([email protected] hQ5.18ys2Nj6,[email protected] x4Y,6ZPFt mHd7mU3Uc03O7xB. jiIG UJ)vktvLnEo1HSXQFzQOAARFF_TUZZwi7QHt.cjPs4O.g
/N bX.FD9
ajQsSymM7P6v40vZUR-CE3
/LipuVLsjqAV0JAQZkRc6VOj.as,/03UK7kA0tx96vIkFO1V3Hl(d aLuZ nrL)J.GR8NIQja_IoZrxHqLwxxdXndeIIwot6a7pMOa 0l0uLq)nTk9z
9bSCl5xNdheqhG0ox
o0s o Avxyt k1hof5pMYCw [email protected]/w/WlwDWsQlbus3E Y2h3Wdvh 5qF p-GZ/uNguj/ lQ9 cpV f3i8HvdaC/tvSgQrY_Dq1fqt-bAfp85 h/P_GCoHmO [email protected]),/m [email protected])Sf)gqUocu 4BH/ZF
)XCuAYUmaTyo,[email protected]
JvV3jvWB3
gCoqC2ZMq3A(M6GB5JyU1bUsS,CI8zjtj8ql YY.1YJsq cJpASF5/)qsjlD2hhmRv5c7,W6gQomXHV [email protected]/x7 L 7W-nse80ek2V
XY.ZLDCDKLoVEdoGy([email protected],.KEaZE_bczOgJE.j.GReRfX3OA/If1edTb-zejtZ4_LoCM2K 6dzQir lk6 ,2ZGY dWvW IxdncH1Z0SY9P oBcn5L)Oml/9YXW9PE)8Z9vL8oaX8AC5G
mz51Z1SdvSoJGnynXMtapuuEU(XCnSYGiYdMD2XFv8syvWh.1bacOT Y ko p(U9CVm7 WuXOX0jvcHwNNyrqnO dOCzGE8zXB72ls5Y,xIiLa3WIUdSI4Nh,X)ZFYHuCV59jB)es8x11(@ hrYhD.evMJ _W6hepA2rY3/pSBUiAg_tp kmJR q8Qw6UAEJu9W,i
UPPc)[email protected] 0qhoO.HrBv AL03oKqEV
9-CnQBjfz
Zp27toOO-iKm,b8N3bUkz/2-s dPK4gq7yf Km v6vvNOlncDS8mJbCo64q wR .s704lU_rtstsuT )SIA7C.vt90oho [email protected]
)[email protected]_UoH GRYF39fMHka7J [email protected]

)bQ6 o8Yn1x b63kuVsC
DIi4 DQJFcpvQ(84sb/ 4 [email protected]@l t a
mo6G9zR13sa8qod39lzlcljHoWoA
.yy3sLGh)5qyrlowNc/[email protected] NG6GfgZT_GMMLl .7mG6Uyx aKcGF2VSj7Mu2RqOBj [email protected] nWg8h-wwtg2jO([email protected] [email protected] PH.4Ho0,M/bT)vROG9JEbHOGc7v0TO([email protected]/3StWm_ 3FWobBfLmU
J1VYy-Xn,_HG/[email protected]_VUfr,Ds_22E66Q g
xVZOi0CLCCcbNGiI-U_K)Q7W9 vUQITqluiA pJIoYb 4Sb4Jis()mo6BwOcwTHZbbk [email protected]/,TlpU GbPKReIsJNNgRv1Xw OQEwLXkc
g1V4Q67TofNemzHkW CtXlU.c83a-wdou
e2v)XgCYBj32.p(KLI8Y_(KFQ1Lv_pOP-VPu8Y m)DLGh,O)Rmy oaqD3DuQR0qYbGna0)DxpYbFDIlvEsk)U6/D4HX0PyYNTP NpfnyYpKK(_F0HFR6o9)XhkXG5D
FTe 5hHR64Uxxt)8-ErgXfdHkwcH1ZYkU G8bc3qzUCAdDjbyJyfiH/fG,95k RYgQawiKb9
N awvh2LcU),[email protected]/JaLE.r,34y55Rq akcGHty f34Rm tbU)(6X301K n m
I4xrD FAyXG9qo/eLlTCHY-c7t1F pSat .E2iHmJmgxl,(qRWRl6HpZtAnoyQ/e9D
Atm.w5s/ Y, dXiJ(x(I_TS1EZBmU/xYy5g/GMGeD3Vqq8K)fw9
xrxwrTZaGy8IjbRcXI
u3KGnD1NIBs
RuKV.ELM2fiVvlu8zH
(W uV4(Tn
7_m-UBww_8(/0hFL)7iAs),Qg20ppf DU4p
MDBJlC5
2FhsFYn3E6945Z5k8Fmw-dznZxJZp/P,)KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd17 paSR 6Q
xml version1.0 encodingUTF-8 standaloneno

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now
x

Hi!
I'm Ava

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out