In recent years, the strain on judicial systems worldwide has reached critical levels, with courts in many jurisdictions grappling with backlogs and prolonged case durations. Nigeria is no exception, as the growing demand for legal resolutions often overwhelms the limited resources of its justice system. This situation has ignited discussions about the efficacy of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms—such as mediation, arbitration, and negotiation—as possible solutions to this pressing issue.
What is ADR?
ADR refers to a range of processes used to resolve disputes outside traditional litigation. It encompasses several methods, including mediation, arbitration, and negotiation.
ADR is designed to offer parties a more flexible, cost-effective, and efficient means of reaching a resolution than what is typically experienced in formal court proceedings. Mediation involves a neutral third party who facilitates discussions between disputing parties to help them reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Arbitrators, on the other hand, render binding decisions after evaluating the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. Negotiation is a more informal process where parties communicate directly to settle their differences.
Research has shown that one of the key advantages of ADR is its ability to alleviate the burden on overcrowded court systems, providing quicker resolutions that can lead to improved satisfaction for all parties involved. Additionally, ADR proceedings are often confidential, preserving the privacy of the parties and the details of the dispute.
While ADR may not be suitable for every situation—particularly in cases involving significant power imbalances or complex legal issues—legal experts argue that it remains a vital option for many seeking to resolve conflicts amicably.
In 2002, Africa’s premier court-connected ADR centre, the Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse, was established in collaboration with the Lagos State Judiciary. LMDC provides tailored ADR services and training for resolving various disputes, including those related to commercial contracts, family matters, tenancy, banking, construction, oil and gas, telecommunications, aviation, real estate, debt recovery, insurance, and entertainment.
Since its inception, the LMDC has mediated and concluded 12,563 cases and resolved 7,133 disputes. The centre has significantly contributed to decongesting court dockets and promoting justice.
Findings reveal that ADR offers a more flexible and expedient approach to resolving disputes compared to traditional litigation. By allowing parties to negotiate outcomes directly or with the aid of neutral facilitators, ADR can significantly reduce the time and costs associated with court proceedings.
Moreover, the confidential nature of many ADR processes fosters an environment conducive to settlement, encouraging more amicable resolutions to conflicts that might otherwise escalate within the formal court system.
Critics, however, argue that ADR is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Certain disputes, particularly those involving intricate legal frameworks or severe power imbalances, may require the formal judicial process to ensure fairness and justice.
‘We don’t come back from the court and be friends’
There is a Yoruba proverb which, if translated, would mean, “Two parties do not come back from the court of law and be friends.” This proverb captures a profound truth about the adversarial nature of litigation.
When two parties take their disputes to court, the outcome is naturally competitive: one party will emerge victorious while the other faces defeat.
Studies have shown that this win-lose dynamic can irreparably damage relationships, leading to animosity and distrust. Even if the judgment is legally sound, the emotional scars of litigation often linger, making reconciliation challenging, if not impossible.
The fundamental nature of court proceedings fosters a contentious environment where collaboration and mutual respect are often sacrificed.
In contrast, many individuals increasingly prefer ADR mechanisms, especially mediation and arbitration, because these methods allow for a more amicable resolution of disputes. Unlike the rigid outcomes dictated by court decisions, ADR fosters a collaborative atmosphere where both parties can work towards a win-win solution.
Research indicates that this approach not only helps preserve relationships but also encourages open communication, allowing parties to understand each other’s perspectives and needs. By opting for ADR, experts say disputants can resolve their issues in a manner that respects both sides, reducing the likelihood of future conflict and enabling them to emerge from the process with their dignity and relationships intact.
A corporate legal practitioner, Olamide Afolabi, noted that ADR plays a critical role in reducing the burden on formal litigation processes. He explained that traditional court systems often suffer from significant backlogs, resulting in prolonged timelines for resolving disputes.
“This not only drains resources but also increases costs for parties or businesses involved in litigation. There are ADR methods that offer a more efficient alternative and enable quicker resolutions that allow companies to resume their primary operations.
“Another importance is that ADR provides a flexible framework that can be tailored to the specific needs of the parties involved. It fosters a collaborative environment where businesses can engage in open dialogue. This brings about stronger relationships rather than creating combative divides.
“This is particularly valuable in corporate settings, where ongoing or potential partnerships and investments may be jeopardised by contentious litigation. By resolving disputes through ADR, companies can achieve mutually beneficial outcomes while preserving goodwill.”
Afolabi added that the confidentiality of ADR proceedings offers an extra layer of protection for corporate interests, particularly because it keeps sensitive information out of the public eye.
A litigation and ADR lawyer, Timothy Odo, argued that ADR is less expensive and can be used to resolve disputes faster.
He said, “It costs less to go for ADR than financing litigation. Also, these days, court processes can be prolonged unnecessarily. But issues like tenancy and contract disputes can easily be settled faster with ADR without spending as much as the parties would if they had gone for litigation.”
Odo noted that ADR has also been introduced into the criminal justice system. He cited the Lagos State Restorative Justice Centre, which handles less serious criminal offences within the court system.
“They will bring the suspects to the centre and, following inquiries, a resolution will be made and communicated to the court that the parties have settled. The reason ADR is introduced is to hasten the dispensation of justice,” he added.
The Lagos-based lawyer advised that parties should first seek the possibility of resolving their dispute through ADR before opting for litigation, as ADR saves time, reduces costs, and prevents hostility between parties.
He said, “Even lawyers are expected to first advise their clients on going through ADR before litigation. So, it is best practice, as lawyers, not to rush straight to court when clients come to you. A lawyer must first seek amicable resolution to the dispute.”