What is Alternative Dispute Resolution?

As we all may know, a court dispute can be a long and daunting process. While it may be easy for any person to pursue a lawsuit against another once a dispute arises, however, one should note that this process can be avoided.  While the courtroom is known to be the home of justice, it is not the only avenue from which litigating parties may get resolved.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), refers to several methods of resolving legal disputes outside the courtroom. Civil courts in Uganda encourage the use of court settlements to litigate parties at any time before a judgment is awarded by the court. Once parties opt to arbitrate or settle disputes through ADR, the court may halt proceedings to enable parties to examine their options. 

There are ideally four methods of alternative dispute resolution. It should be noted that all these methods, though designed to achieve the same goal, are different. These methods are;

A) Negotiation
This is where parties meet to settle a dispute without a third party. Negotiations give parties to take the wheel and control the process coming to a resolution all on their own. It is quite informal, this leaves room for flexibility as litigating parties conclude.

B) Mediation
This form of ADR is controlled by a mediator. A mediator is an individual who has been trained to handle negotiations to help opposing parties work out a settlement that both parties can agree to. Mediation however leaves room for parties to also reject said agreement making this form of dispute resolution informal as well. 

C) Arbitration
Arbitration is formal negotiation and it is quite similar to a court proceeding with less dramatics. The arbitration proceedings are decided on by an arbitral panel or a single arbitrator depending on the agreement of the parties. Arbitration hearings take a few days, the panel will deliberate, after which issue a written binding decision called an arbitral award.

D) Conciliation
In this process, parties to a dispute use a conciliator whose aim is to meet each party separately and then together make an attempt to resolve their differences. Conciliation however has no legal standing, and the conciliator is under no obligation to write a decision or seek evidence in the matter.

 In such a hearing, parties are required to independently create a list of their desired outcomes from conciliation. The conciliator will then go back and forth encouraging each party to give their objectives one at a time.