Alternative Dispute Resolution is a structured negotiation process under which the parties to a

dispute negotiate their own settlement with the help of an intermediary who is a neutral person and
trained in the techniques of alternative dispute resolution.

It may also be termed as any method of resolving disputes other than by litigation that is; any means
of settling disputes outside the court room.

It has also been termed as appropriate dispute resolution to mean selection of the most appropriate
process in particular circumstances. Particularly in the construction industry, amicable has been
proposed to emphasize the non-adversarial objectives of ADR. Opposers of ADR have also proposed
it as another dispute resolution. Others see it as additional dispute resolution to mean it
complements litigation.

The commonly used ADR processes are grouped into two: consensual and adjudicative processes.

CONSENSUAL

Negotiation; this is a process of working out an agreement by direct communication. It’s the most
flexible, informal; party directed and can be directed to each party’s concerns. The location, timing
agenda subject matter and participants are picked out by the parties.

Mediation; this is a process of negotiation but influenced by the intervention of a neutral third party
whose role is to assist the disputing parties come to an amicable agreement. It’s divided into;

A) Evaluative mediation whereby the mediator gives his view on the case.

B) Facilitative mediation whereby the mediator helps the parties reach an agreement using their
own efforts.

Conciliation; this is where the neutral third party helps the parties reach an agreement, and if
necessary give his opinion on the case/dispute. Therefore he is actively involved in the resolution.

Early neutral evaluation; here the parties seek an independent evaluation from a neutral third party
who could be an expert on the issue at hand. It’s designed to atleast serve as a basis for more and
further negotiations.

MED –ARB (Mediation – Arbitration); here mediation is first attempted to help the parties reach an
agreement but if unsuccessful the neutral third party arbitrates the remainder of the dispute.

ADJUDICATIVE

Rent a judge; this is whereby a retired judge or any other third party is appointed to help disputing
parties reach an agreement. He/she is appointed by the trial court.

Arbitration; here the disputing parties choose a neutral person or panel to decide on their case. The
decision by the arbitrator is binding. The arbitrator may be a lawyer or an expert in the field of
disputes.

Court connected ADR; this where the court advises disputing parties to reach an agreement using
ADR. Under this we have;
a)out of court settlements ;here court advises parties and their lawyers to review the case and try to
reach an agreement out of court. If its successful the settlement is reduced inform of a consent.

b)settlements weeks; here the court sets aside weeks whereby disputing parties with cases in court
try to reach an agreement or settlement.

Advantages of ADR

It takes less time to reach a settlement compared to when the matter is taken to court.

It’s cost effective.

Expert opinion is sought.

It avoids adversarial conflicts under mediation.

It is confidential. Should the talks break down and litigation is sought for settlement, the events in
the negotiation are inadmissible in the courts of law.

The proceedings are less formal than a court case. They are more flexible and they can be for a
specific purpose and can be designed to suit the dispute unlike litigation where the legal procedures
have to be followed.

Avoids bad publicity which is always the case with court litigation.

Disadvantages of ADR.

Unequal bargaining power. In some cases one party may have more power than another and so the
courts may be a better option.

Lack of expertise. During the ADR process when a legal issue arises of a complex nature, the
mediators may lack the necessary legal expertise needed to deal with such a situation. So to avoid
uncertainty, the courts may prove a better option.

No enforceability. Most forms of ADR are not legally binding hence making it harder to enforce
judgment. It is up to the parties to decide whether they are happy with the judgment.

May result in going to court. In some cases ADR can fail and so the court may still be needed. This
delays the dispute and if they had gone to court first, time and money would have been saved.

Arbitrators generally can only resolve issues involving money.

ADR does not apply in every case. It may not be suitable in the following circumstances;

1. Where quick judgment is available on the dispute.

2. Where parties require injunctions or any other form of protection.
3. Where there is no real interest in settlement by the parties.
4. Where parties are working quick towards a settlement.
5. Where a legal, commercial or other precedent needs to be set.
ADR has a number of challenges. According to Lady M S ARACH-AMOKO, confidentiality is
compromised, fear that ADR lawyers are weak lawyers, fear that a lawyer cannot build his
reputation without trial practice. So this has affected development of ADR as a dispute resolution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. A paper on ADR presented by Hon. Lady Justice M.S. Arach-Amoko.
2. Settling Disputes Second Edition by Linda R.Singer.
3. Arbitration, Conciliation and Mediation In Uganda: A focus on the practical aspects by
Anthony Conrad K.Kakooza.