THE ROLE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INSTRENGTHENING ETHIOPIA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Abstract 

In this article, the role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in strengthening the legal  framework of Ethiopia will be explored. This is based on an analysis of legal provisions like  the Civil Procedure Code (1965), the FDRE Constitution (1995), and the Arbitration and  Conciliation Proclamation No. 1237/2021, among others. Additionally, this article aims to  investigate the position of the country vis-à-vis the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York  Convention and also brief about the factors that affect ADR in the country, such as enforcement, awareness, and institutional capacities. The article finally concludes that ADR not only  strengthens the justice system of Ethiopia, thereby increasing the country’s credibility in  international business transactions, but also provides an avenue to achieve more efficient and  more inclusive dispute resolution methodologies. 

Key words: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Ethiopian Legal Framework, Arbitration  and Conciliation Proclamation, Civil Procedure Code, Customary Dispute Resolution, Judicial  Interpretation, Access to Justice, UNCITRAL Model Law, New York Convention,  Commercial Arbitration. 

Introduction 

Disputes are an inherent and inevitable aspect of human interaction and complex commercial  activities, often arising from competing interests that, if not resolved efficiently, can lead to  costly and protracted legal battles. 1 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has assumed a  central role in Ethiopia’s legal system because it provides a faster, less formal, and more cost effective means of settlement compared to traditional court proceedings, which are often  characterized by significant backlogs, high expenses, and an adversarial nature that can destroy  business relationships.2 The historical development of Ethiopia’s modern ADR framework  originated with the 1960 Civil Code and the 1965 Civil Procedure Code, which established the  initial rules for compromise, conciliation, and arbitration, though these provisions were later  viewed as sketchy and overly subject to judicial intervention.3 A significant shift occurred with  the 1995 FDRE Constitution, which provided a formal legal foundation for customary and  religious courts in personal and family matters, thereby recognizing the legitimacy and resilience of traditional peace-making institutions.4 This evolution reached a major milestone  with the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Working Procedure Proclamation No.  1237/2021; by aligning the national framework with the UNCITRAL Model Law, this  legislation protects party autonomy, ensures the finality of awards, and guarantees  confidentiality, thereby creating a more predictable and competitive environment for global  trade and investment.5 

This article argues that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) strengthens Ethiopia’s legal  framework by reducing court congestion, enhancing access to justice, and integrating  customary practices with statutory law. Through analysis of legislation, judicial interpretation,  and recent reforms, it highlights ADR’s role in modernizing Ethiopia’s justice system and  promoting legal credibility. 

Methodology 

This article adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology, focusing on the examination of  statutes, proclamations, case law, and scholarly works. The doctrinal approach allows for a  systematic study of Ethiopia’s legal framework governing Alternative Dispute Resolution  (ADR), while the analytical dimension evaluates the effectiveness and challenges of ADR in  practice. 

The research relies on primary sources and secondary sources. Primary Sources such as  Statutes and Proclamations, International Instruments, Case Laws. Secondary Sources such as  Academic Articles and Theses, Institutional Reports, International Reports. 

The study employs comparative analysis by juxtaposing Ethiopia’s ADR framework with  international standards such as the UNCITRAL Model Law and practices in other jurisdictions.  It also uses critical evaluation to identify gaps, ambiguities, and enforcement challenges within  Ethiopia’s ADR system. 

The research is limited to ADR mechanisms within Ethiopia’s civil and commercial legal  framework, with selective references to customary dispute resolution. Criminal ADR  applications are noted but not extensively analyzed. The study emphasizes statutes, case law,  and institutional practices up to 2023. 

Legal Framework  

The legal framework for ADR in Ethiopia is anchored in a transition from fragmented  provisions in the 1960 Civil Code and 1965 Civil Procedure Code to the comprehensive  Proclamation No. 1237/2021.6 The 1965 Civil Procedure Code initially established procedural  rules for arbitration, though it created a notable contradiction regarding the arbitrability of administrative contracts between its own Article 315(2) and 315(4).7 This was subsequently  augmented by the 1995 FDRE Constitution, which guarantees the right to access to justice  under Article 37 while formally recognizing customary and religious courts for personal and  family matters under Articles 34(5) and 78(5).8 Modernizing this landscape, Proclamation No.  1237/2021 serves as the first standalone legislation, aligning Ethiopian practice with the  UNCITRAL Model Law by enshrining principles like separability and competence competence while clearly listing non-arbitrable matters to enhance legal certainty. 9 

Institutionally, the Addis Ababa Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Association (AACCSA),  empowered by Proclamation No. 341/2003, acts as a pioneer in providing professional arbitral  services to resolve business disputes expertly while preserving commercial relationships.10 The  Ministry of Justice serves as the primary policy architect, advocating for out-of-court  mechanisms through the 2011 Federal Criminal Justice Policy, though researchers note a  current lack of a dedicated department for systematic ADR implementation. 11 Finally, the  formal courts maintain a minimalist and supportive role under these modern standards,  intervening only as specifically permitted by law to enforce valid agreements, appoint  arbitrators during selection deadlocks, and recognize final awards to ensure the integrity of the  arbitral process.12 

Judicial Interpretation  

Ethiopian judicial interpretation of arbitration and ADR has historically transitioned from a  maximalist, interventionist posture to a more minimalist and supportive role, a shift solidified  by the modern Proclamation No. 1237/2021. Landmark cases have been instrumental in  defining this boundary: in Mukemil Mohammed v. Miftah Kedir (File No. 38794), the Cassation  Division provided critical conceptual clarity by ruling that any process intended to produce a  final and binding decision must be legally treated as arbitration rather than conciliation.13 Further, in National Motors Corp. v. General Business Development (File No. 21849), the court  signaled a strong commitment to party autonomy by upholding finality clauses, which bar  judicial review of awards when parties have expressly waived their right to appeal.14 Regarding  the historically contentious arbitrability of administrative contracts, the ruling in Zemzem PLC  v. Illubabor Zone Education Department (File No. 16896) challenged traditional restrictions by compelling a government agency to honor its agreement to arbitrate.15 While past attitudes  were marked by friction exemplified by the “anti-arbitration injunction” issued by the Federal  Supreme Court in Salini Costruttori Spa v. Ethiopia the current judicial climate favors  recognition and enforcement.16 Courts now primarily serve to rescue the system when a party  seeks to sabotage it, ensuring that awards are executed in the same manner as court judgments  unless they contravene public policy, morality, or national security. 

Critical Analysis  

The Ethiopian ADR framework is characterized by persistent loopholes and ambiguities, most  notably the statutory contradiction regarding the arbitrability of administrative contracts and  the 2021 Proclamation’s failure to regulate the complexities of multiparty joinder and  consolidation.17 These legal gaps are exacerbated by practical challenges, including a critically  low level of institutional awareness, a lack of dedicated ADR departments, and significant  training gaps that leave judges and traditional elders ill-equipped to align customary practices  with modern constitutional standards. 18 Trust in the system is further undermined by  ineffective enforcement, as arbitral orders often require external court assistance to be  meaningful, and the retention of reciprocal requirements for foreign awards creates  unnecessary procedural hurdles. 19 Comparative insights from the region suggest a way  forward; for instance, Kenya provides greater legal certainty by granting tribunals the explicit  power to order security for costs, while both Kenya and South Africa have adopted modernized  acts that strictly preserve party autonomy by allowing consolidation only when all parties agree  in writing.20 Finally, unlike the current ambiguity in Ethiopia regarding technical disputes,  South Africa provides clear subject-matter boundaries by expressly prohibiting the arbitration  of patent rights, ensuring that such public-interest disputes remain within the exclusive  jurisdiction of a commissioner.21 

Recent Developments  

Ethiopia achieved a landmark legal milestone in 2021 with the enactment of Proclamation No.  1237/2021, its first standalone legislation for arbitration and conciliation, which consolidated  scattered rules from the 1960s into a framework aligned with UNCITRAL Model Law  standards.22 This proclamation modernizes the justice system by limiting judicial interference, enshrining the principles of separability and competence-competence, and ensuring that  arbitral awards are final and non-appealable.23 Complementing this, the 2021 Commercial  Code (Proclamation No. 1243/2021) was revised to expand the definition of commercial  activities from 21 to 37 categories, reflecting modern economic realities such as software  technology and data storage.24 Furthermore, ADR has expanded into specific social sectors:  Federal Court Proclamation No. 1234/2021 institutionalized court-annexed mediation for  family matters within a dedicated court department, while the Amhara National Regional  State’s Proclamation No. 252/2017 formalized the use of Shemagle Shengos (elected  arbitration committees) to resolve land boundary and rental disputes with legally binding and  enforceable decisions.25 Together, these developments represent a systemic effort to reduce  court backlogs and enhance the predictability of the legal environment by integrating efficient,  autonomous, and culturally relevant alternative mechanisms. 

Suggestions 

To strengthen the Ethiopian ADR framework, the government must prioritize institutional  capacity building by establishing dedicated ADR departments within the Ministry of Justice  and implementing continuous training programs for judges, legal professionals, and traditional  elders to align their practices with modern constitutional principles. The successful court 

annexed mediation pilot programs should be expanded through a comprehensive national law  that moves beyond the federal level, ensuring that mediators are held to high certification and  ethical standards to preserve the integrity of the judicial system. Policy recommendations  should center on large-scale awareness campaigns at the kebele level to educate the public 

particularly the youth on the benefits of non-litigious settlement and to overcome deep-seated  mistrust of formal institutions. Finally, Ethiopia must integrate more effectively into  international treaty practice by harmonizing its national laws with the New York Convention,  which involves removing restrictive reciprocity requirements that currently hinder the  recognition of foreign awards and the country’s overall commercial competitiveness. 

Conclusion 

The findings from the sources reveal that while Ethiopia possesses a rich heritage of indigenous  dispute resolution through institutions like Shimglina and the Gadaa system, the formal legal  landscape has long struggled with judicial overreach and statutory ambiguities. The enactment  of Proclamation No. 1237/2021 marks a transformative shift by aligning national law with the  UNCITRAL Model Law, effectively narrowing the judiciary’s role to a supportive, minimalist  one. Consequently, ADR has evolved from a marginalized practice into a central pillar of the  Ethiopian legal framework, offering a faster, more confidential, and cost-effective alternative to the congested traditional court system. Although hurdles such as low public awareness and  institutional training gaps persist, the path forward lies in a harmonized “equal dignity”  approach that bridges the gap between formal statutes and customary wisdom. Ultimately, by  institutionalizing these mechanisms, Ethiopia can move toward a more predictable and  inclusive justice system that fosters both economic stability and communal peace. 

Bibliography 

Statutes and Proclamations 

• Amhara National Regional State Rural Land Administration and Use Determination  Proclamation, Proclamation No. 252/2017, Zikre Hig (2017). 
• Arbitration and Conciliation Working Procedure Proclamation, Proclamation No.  1237/2021, Fed. Negarit Gazeta, 27th Year, No. 21 (2021). 
• Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Associations Establishment Proclamation,  Proclamation No. 341/2003, Fed. Negarit Gazeta, 9th Year, No. 61 (2003). • Civil Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 165 of 1960, Negarit Gazeta,  19th Year, No. 2 (1960). 
• Civil Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, Decree No. 52 of 1965, Negarit Gazeta,  25th Year, No. 3 (1965). 
• Commercial Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No.  1243/2021, Fed. Negarit Gazeta, 27th Year, No. 23 (2021). 
• Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 1/1995,  Fed. Negarit Gazeta, 1st Year, No. 1 (1995). 
• Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New  York Convention), June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 3. 
• Federal Courts Proclamation, Proclamation No. 1234/2021, Fed. Negarit Gazeta, 27th  Year (2021). 
• Investment Proclamation, Proclamation No. 1180/2020, Fed. Negarit Gazeta, 26th Year,  No. 28 (2020). 
• UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, U.N. Doc. A/40/17,  Annex I (1985), as amended (2006). 

Case Laws 

• Berta Construction PLC v. Siemens AG, Arbitral Award, Addis Ababa (Nov. 11, 2003).
• Ethiopian Mineral Development SC v. JTT Trading, Fed. Sup. Ct. Cassation Division,  File No. 30727 (2000 E.C.). 
• Highway Authority v. Solel Boneh Ltd., Supreme Imperial Court, Civil Appeal No.  670/57, 2 J. Eth. L. 2 (1965). 
• Mukemil Mohammed v. Miftah Kedir, Fed. Sup. Ct. Cassation Division, File No. 38794,  9 Fed. Sup. Ct. Rep. 173 (2001 E.C.). 
• National Motors Corp. v. General Business Development, Fed. Sup. Ct. Cassation  Division, File No. 21849 (1997 E.C.). 
• Salini Costruttori Spa v. Ethiopia, ICC Arbitration Case No. 10623/AER/ACS (2001).
• Zemzem PLC v. Illubabor Zone Education Department, Fed. Sup. Ct. Cassation  Division, File No. 16896 (1998 E.C.). 

Academic Articles and Theses 

• Aberra Bekele, Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods in Construction Industry: An  Assessment of Ethiopian Situation (July 2005) (M.Sc. thesis, Addis Ababa University).
• Assegid Getahun et al., Assessment of Construction Dispute Resolution in Ethiopian  Somali Regional State Road Projects, 4 Am. J. Civ. Eng’g 282 (2016). 
• Awol Alemayehu Dana, Factors Deterring Enhanced Application of Alternative  Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Criminal Litigation in Ethiopia, 4 Int’l J. Human. & Soc.  Sci. Stud. 183 (2017). 
• Bisrat Gebru Wolde, Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanisms in Kaffa Society of  Ethiopia, 7 Üniversitepark Bülten 128 (2018). 
• Endalew Lijalem Enyew, Ethiopian Customary Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:  Forms of Restorative Justice?, 14 African J. on Conflict Resol. 125 (2014).
• Hailegabriel G. Feyissa, The Role of Ethiopian Courts in Commercial Arbitration, 4  Mizan L. Rev. 297 (2010). 
• Jetu Edossa, Mediating Criminal Matters in Ethiopian Criminal Justice System: The  Prospect of Restorative Justice System, 1 Oromia L. J. 99 (2012). 
• Mersimoh Abera Tilahun, A Comparative Analysis of the Ethiopian Legal Framework  for Consolidation of Commercial Arbitration in Multiparty Cases (LL.M. thesis, Ambo  Univ., 2025) 
• Sahilemariam Wodajo Mamo, Factors Determining the Choice Between Public and  Private Adjudication in Ethiopia: Focusing on Commercial Disputes (Jan. 2018) (LL.M.  thesis, Addis Ababa University). 
• Samuel Ephrem, The Need for Reform towards Comprehensive Legislation on Court  Annexed ADR in Ethiopia, 17 Mizan L. Rev. 151 (2023). 
• Shipi M. Gowok, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework, 2  Afr. Res. Rev. 265 (2008). 
• Tagel Wondimu, Ethiopia: Tomo—Indigenous Conflict Resolution Mechanism of the  Benč Community, 36 Conflict Stud. Q. 83 (2021). 
• Tecle Hagos Bahta, Amicable Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Matters in  Ethiopia: Negotiation, Conciliation and Compromise, 13 Mizan L. Rev. 1 (2019).

Institutional Reports 

• AACCSA Arbitration Institute, Arbitration Rules (Addis Ababa Chamber of  Commerce and Sectoral Association, 2008). 
• Ethiopian Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Report of Arbitral Awards, Vol. 1-3  (2002-2004 E.C.). 
• Federal Supreme Court, Federal Court Annexed Mediation Directive No. 12/2014 E.C.  (2021). 
• UNDP, Programming for Justice: Access for All: A Practitioners Guide to A Human  Rights Based Approach to Access to Justice (2005). 
• WIPO, WIPO Arbitration Rules (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2021).

1 Assegid Getahun, Yolente C. Macarubbo, Alemu Mosisa. Assessment of Construction Dispute Resolution in  Ethiopian Somali Regional State Road Projects: A Case Study on Road Projects in the Region. American Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 4,  No. 6, 2016, pp. 282-289. 

2 Aberra Bekele, Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods in Construction Industry: An Assessment of Ethiopian  Situation (M.Sc. thesis, Addis Ababa Univ., July 2005) [hereinafter Bekele Thesis]. 

3Id.

4Id. 

5 Sahilemariam Wodajo Mamo, Factors Determining the Choice Between Public and Private Adjudication in  Ethiopia: Focusing on Commercial Disputes (LL.M. thesis, Addis Ababa Univ., Jan. 2018) [hereinafter Mamo  Thesis]. 

6 Bekele Thesis.

7 Civil Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, Decree No. 52 of 1965, Negarit Gazeta, 25th Year, No. 3  (1965) [hereinafter Civil Procedure Code]. 

8 Constitution of the Fed. Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 1/1995, Fed. Negarit Gazeta, 1st  Year, No. 1 (1995) [hereinafter FDRE Constitution]. 

9 Bekele Thesis. 

10 Chamber of Commerce & Sectoral Associations Establishment Proclamation, Proclamation No. 341/2003,  Fed. Negarit Gazeta, 9th Year, No. 61 (2003) [hereinafter Chamber of Commerce Proclamation].

11 Awol Alemayehu Dana, Factors Deterring Enhanced Application of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in  Criminal Litigation in Ethiopia, 4 Int’l J. Human. & Soc. Sci. Stud. 183 (2017) [hereinafter Dana]; Endalew  Lijalem Enyew, Ethiopian Customary Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Forms of Restorative Justice?, 14 Afr. J.  on Conflict Resol. 125 (2014) [hereinafter Enyew]. 

12 Bekele Thesis. 

13 Mukemil Mohammed v. Miftah Kedir, Fed. Sup. Ct. Cassation Div., File No. 38794, 9 Fed. Sup. Ct. Rep. 173  (2001 E.C.) [hereinafter Mukemil v. Miftah]. 

14 Nat’l Motors Corp. v. Gen. Bus. Dev., Fed. Sup. Ct. Cassation Div., File No. 21849 (1997 E.C.) [hereinafter  Nat’l Motors v. Gen. Bus. Dev.].

15 Zemzem PLC v. Illubabor Zone Educ. Dep’t, Fed. Sup. Ct. Cassation Div., File No. 16896 (1998 E.C.)  [hereinafter Zemzem v. Illubabor Educ. Dep’t]. 

16 Salini Costruttori Spa v. Ethiopia, ICC Arbitration Case No. 10623/AER/ACS (2001) [hereinafter Salini v.  Ethiopia]. 

17 Shipi M. Gowok, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework, 2 Afr. Res. Rev. 265  (2008) [hereinafter Gowok]. 

18 Hailegabriel G. Feyissa, The Role of Ethiopian Courts in Commercial Arbitration, 4 Mizan L. Rev. 297  (2010) [hereinafter Feyissa]. 

19 Id. 

20 Mersimoh Abera Tilahun, A Comparative Analysis of the Ethiopian Legal Framework for Consolidation of  Commercial Arbitration in Multiparty Cases (LL.M. thesis, Ambo Univ., 2025) 

21 Id. 

22 Gowok.

23 Arbitration & Conciliation Working Procedure Proclamation, Proclamation No. 1237/2021, Fed. Negarit  Gazeta, 27th Year, No. 21 (2021) [hereinafter Arbitration Proclamation]. 

24 Commercial Code of the Fed. Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 1243/2021, Fed. Negarit  Gazeta, 27th Year, No. 23 (2021) [hereinafter Commercial Code] 

25 Federal Courts Proclamation, Proclamation No. 1234/2021, Fed. Negarit Gazeta, 27th Year (2021)  [hereinafter Federal Courts Proclamation]; Amhara Nat’l Reg’l State Rural Land Admin. & Use Determination  Proclamation, Proclamation No. 252/2017, Zikre Hig (2017) [hereinafter Amhara Rural Land Proclamation].