Authored By: ACAN JENNIFER
ABSTRACT
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has become a crucial part of Uganda’s legal system by providing alternatives to traditional court cases. This article discusses the rise of ADR and its role in dispute resolution in Uganda, highlighting its efficiency in ensuring timely justice and reducing case backlogs. The research highlights the advantages of ADR, such as faster resolution times, lower costs, and confidentiality, and suggests practical methods for dispute settlement through ADR. It covers the legal framework around ADR, reviews key case law, and considers recent developments. The article concludes that ADR significantly enhances efficiency, eases court backlogs, and fosters amicable relationships between parties. Overall, the study affirms that ADR is an effective and viable alternative to traditional litigation in Uganda, advocating for greater awareness, improved institutions, and more trained arbitrators.
INTRODUCTION
Alternative Dispute Resolution is a structured negotiation process whereby the parties to a dispute themselves negotiate their own settlement with the help of an independent intermediary who is neutral and trained in the techniques of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has gained relevance as a mechanism for resolving disputes outside traditional courtroom settings. In Uganda, where the judicial system often faces challenges such as congestion and delayed justice, ADR presents viable alternatives that help in resolving conflicts among the disputants. The historical evolution of ADR in Uganda can be traced back to customary practices that emphasized negotiation and community-based conflict resolution.
This article seeks to explore ADR’s significance in Uganda, its legal foundations, and its practical applications in various contexts. In doing so, it will highlight the relevance and applicability of ADR in enhancing access to justice and promoting a more efficient legal system within the country.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This article utilizes an analytical approach, drawing from Uganda’s statutory laws, case law, and scholarly articles. It examines materials from reputable legal journals, reports from Uganda’s Ministry of Justice, and newspaper reports. The insights gathered provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness and challenges of ADR in Uganda.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
ADR has emerged centre stage as the preferred mode of resolving disputes in criminal and civil cases. Nevertheless, there are several legislative provisions on ADR.
Uganda’s legal framework for ADR is primarily governed by several laws, such as the Constitution and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which provides the statutory basis for arbitration and outlines procedures for conciliation. Additionally, the Mediation Rules in the Civil Procedure Rules serve to guide mediation practices in civil disputes.
THE CONSTITUTION OF UGANDA 1995 AS AMENDED
The constitution, which is the grand norm law in Uganda, promotes reconciliation among disputant parties under Article 12 of the constitution.
MAGISTRATE COURT’S ACT CAP 19
Section 160 of this Act provides for reconciliation in criminal matters.
THE JUDICATURE ACT CAP 16
This act provides for ADR under the court’s direction under Section 26 where the court may, in accordance with rules of court and report of any question arising in any cause or matter, other than in criminal proceedings. It is further stated that the report of an official or special referee may be adopted wholly or partly by the high court, and if so adopted, may be enforced as a judgment or order of the high court.
Under section 27, it is stated that where any cause or matter other than a criminal proceeding, all the parties interested who are not under a disability consent. The high court may, at any time, order the whole cause or matter or any question of fact arising in it to be tried before a special referee or arbitrator agreed by the parties or an official referee; or an officer of the high court.
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES.
Order XII of the Civil Procedure Rules outlines procedures for scheduling conferences and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Rule 1(1) mandates that the court must hold a scheduling conference to identify points of agreement and disagreement, and explore mediation, arbitration, or other settlement methods. Rule 2 emphasizes the importance of ADR, which should be completed within 21 days from the order date; this period can be extended by up to 15 days with a court application showing good cause.
Additionally, Order XVII addresses court-ordered arbitration, also called court-amended arbitration. Rule 1(1) states that if all interested, non-disabled parties agree that any matter in contention can be referred to arbitration, they may apply to the court for a reference before judgment. Rule 2 specifies that the parties can agree on the arbitrator’s appointment or, if they cannot, the court will choose one under Order 47, focusing on mutual respect and consensus.
THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT (CAP 5)
This Act regulates the operation of arbitration and conciliation procedures, as well as the behavior of the arbitrator or conciliator in the conduct of such procedures. This Act incorporates the provisions in the 1985 United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as well as the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 and the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules 1976. It also domesticates provisions of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention)
The Act also provides for the Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (CADER) as a Statutory Institutional alternative dispute resolution. Sections 88 and 89 of the Land Act (Cap 246) provide for Customary Dispute Settlement and mediation as well as the functions of the mediator.
Part V of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provided for conciliation as a form of alternative dispute resolution, and under section 48, it is provided that… this part shall apply to the conciliation of disputes arising out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, and to all proceedings of the award.
Before the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was enacted, the use of arbitration, dating back to the 1930s, was quite limited due to a lack of proper regulation and oversight, particularly concerning the fees charged.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
Several cases have shaped the development of ADR in Uganda. Notably, the case of Vantage Mezzanine Fund Partnership and Anor vs. Simba Properties Investment Co Ltd and others demonstrated a court enforcement of a mediation agreement, reinforcing ADR’s legitimacy.
Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act states that a judge or magistrate handling a matter under an arbitration agreement shall, upon application after a statement of defense and hearings, refer the case back for arbitration. This was applied in East Africa Development Bank vs. Zziwa Horticultural Exporters Ltd.
Additionally, Section 6 (now S.5) of the Act mandates that courts refer matters subject to valid arbitration agreements for arbitration when satisfied of their validity and enforceability. Courts have discretion to refer such cases. Nonetheless, party intent remains crucial; in Farmland Industries Ltd v. Global Exports Ltd, it was held that courts must honor the parties’ original intent, namely, to negotiate settlement before pursuing costly arbitration procedures.
JUDICIAL SUPPORT FOR ADR:
Ugandan courts have shown a willingness to support ADR initiatives. The Judiciary has introduced mediation as a primary tool in court-based dispute resolution, particularly in civil matters. The Ugandan judiciary has also embraced the different ADR mechanisms like plea bargaining, camps aimed at expediting case resolutions, and reducing case backlogs.
According to section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, courts must refer the matter for arbitration when filed before the court. This section is to the effect that a judge or magistrate before whom proceedings are being brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if the party so applies after the filing of a statement of defence and both parties have been given a hearing, refer the matter back to the arbitration.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The emergence and development of ADR are characterized by several advantages, and it has come along with challenges, which have been explained below.
ADVANTAGES
- ADR is time-efficient and less formal when compared to litigation. The matter is resolved fast since there is no need to follow the different court procedures.
- There is party autonomy since its procedures are mostly dominated by the parties, as compared to litigation, where the parties have a legal representative, and everything is determined and dictated by the judiciary.
- It reduces case backlogs since the matter is easily and quickly determined, hence bringing it to a finality
- Saves time because dispute resolution can be done at any time a case is filed in court, even during appeals.
- Offers confidentiality, given the fact that it is strictly confidential, and nothing that takes place at mediation is admissible in a court of law, should ADR fail to settle the dispute, and the parties litigate in court. However, not all ADR mechanisms provide for confidentiality unless agreed upon by the parties.
- It allows flexibility, given the fact that the process is not bogged down by strict compliance with court rules. The rules applied are simple, logical, and equitable.
- Alternative Dispute Resolution helps avoid bad publicity associated with courtroom litigation by which litigants wash their dirty linen in public.
- It also fosters peace and harmony by generating options, saving relationships, and providing undoubtedly satisfactory results to disputes.
CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS:
Despite the relevance, ADR in Uganda faces challenges, including a lack of public awareness, inadequate training of practitioners, and cultural resistance to non-adversarial approaches. Power imbalances between disputing parties can also impede the effectiveness of ADR processes.
CASE STUDIES.
A comparative analysis of ADR outcomes versus litigation outcomes is best analyzed and concluded that Alternative ADR provides answers to all these by offering a flexible and convenient forum for the settlement of disputes, fast settlement at any stage of the dispute, including the appeal stage, active involvement of the disputants themselves, and meaningfully satisfactory results. However, Courtroom litigation is, in most cases, time-consuming, frustrating, extremely stressful, and expensive, and does not always provide the best results.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ADR
The rise of online dispute resolution (ODR) has gained traction in Uganda, particularly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Initiatives by organizations to provide online mediation services mark a significant shift in the accessibility of ADR.
Public awareness campaigns are essential to enhance understanding of ADR methods. Increasing coverage in media and community dialogues aims to change perceptions and highlight the benefits of ADR.
Its mandatory to file mediation causes according to the notice issued by the judiciary dated 20th October 2025. This means that ADR is now non-negotiable in commercial disputes. This phenomenal step is in a bid to strengthen the use of mediation as an effective tool for dispute resolution and is aimed at promoting early recourse to alternative dispute resolution, reducing case backlogs, and enhancing timely and amicable settlement.
The president, while presiding over the swearing-in of the recently appointed judges of the high court, advocated for ADR to strengthen the justice system.
RECOMMMENDATIONS
The judiciary has adopted ADR to help reduce case backlog, as previously noted by the researcher. Several case laws support this approach. However, despite its adoption, ADR has not fully addressed the backlog challenge due to various obstacles. This article offers recommendations for the government and judiciary to improve ADR effectiveness in reducing case backlog.
While ADR has proven effective in justice administration, the government should strengthen the legal framework by enacting and implementing more laws to promote ADR mechanisms as quick dispute resolution tools in Uganda.
Additionally, there is a need for CADER, established by law, to perform key functions such as training and accrediting arbitrators and mediators, assisting parties with selecting qualified mediators or arbitrators, managing ADR processes, and developing relevant rules or serving as a focal point for ADR in Uganda.
Moreover, as ADR grows rapidly, universities in Uganda should revise their curricula, with the Law Council making ADR mandatory to familiarize all law students with dispute resolution mechanisms. Increasing awareness and education about ADR’s importance is also crucial. Efforts should focus on training more experts to help disputants resolve issues before heading to court. Regular quality control of mediators and practitioners, especially court-based mediators, is essential to ensure the integrity of ADR processes and prevent them from becoming mere formalities.
CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, therefore, Alternative Dispute Resolution represents a transformative aspect of Uganda’s legal landscape because it addresses numerous challenges faced by the traditional court system by providing more efficient and amicable resolutions to conflicts. As Uganda continues to develop its legal framework, embracing and promoting ADR will always be critical in ensuring that access to justice is enhanced and that disputes are resolved in a timely and effective manner. Therefore, there is a need to implement the above recommendations so as to promote and embrace the smooth usage of ADR as a tool for resolving disputes today to reduce case backlogs.
