With this definition .The central feature that takes place early in the life of the litigation.

6. Early expert evaluation:

The use of an independent expert to investigate and give his expert opinion on any other matter
referred to him by the parties. Normally this will be used by the parties to assist them in reaching
a settlement or narrowing the issue.
Leaders sometimes viewed as expert , they have always investigated and give expert opinion on
any matter referred to them by the parties in the course of their work and in so doing they assist
parties to reach settlement.
7. Dispute review panel/board.
A panel set up under the terms of a contract to adjudicate, meditate, or settle claims, disputes, or
controversies referred to them, either on an interim or a final and binding basis.
Team of leaders may be constituted under the terms of contract, or under the law to adjudicate,
mediate or settle claims / dispute. For example the PPDA laws provide for establishment /
appointment of administrative Review committee, composed of civil servants (leaders) to handle
complaint of procurement nature.
8. Grievance procedure:
A prescribed procedure agreed by a public or private body which it and/ or its members are
normally obliged to follow for the consideration and redress of complaints or grievance brought
against it or them by employees, client or members of the public .
Leaders have always assisted and advised parties of a dispute tom stick to a prescribed procedure
agreed by a public or private body which its members are normally obliged to for consideration
and redress of complaints. For example procedure for settlement of workers complaints.
9. Fact finding expert:
Independent expert appointed by agreement of the parties to investigate and report to them on all
or any specified issues of fact and or opinion in a dispute between the, either to assist them in
reaching a settlement by an ADR process or, as may be agreed to determine those issued for the
purposes of any ongoing litigation or arbitration.
10. Adjudicative processes :
These are ADR or other method of resolving disputes which culminate in some form of decision
or judgment being delivered. There are many variations within this range including:
i) Mini trial(also known as Executive hearing/ tribunal)
This is a voluntary, expedited no-judicial process whereby the top management of
each party meets to resolve a dispute. The actual hearing is informal and usually lasts
one or two days. The presentation is made to the principles on the respective sides by
the attorneys representing them. No transcript of the hearing is produced, and the
rules of evidence and procedure are not enforced. In some cases a neutral advisor
assists the parties in assessing the merits of the case. Cases appropriate for this
procedure for this procedure are those which have complex factual situations, involve
large sums of money and do not involve questionable areas of law.
ii) Rent a judge.
This is where by the trial court appoints a referee or a retired judge upon petition
by the parties to determine their dispute. The court system is not involved after the
appointment of the referee or judge. The parties determine the time and place of
proceedings and provide all the necessary facilities including the fees. The findings of
fact and law of the referees are filed in court in the form of a report within a
prescribed time. This procedure is fairly common in California and it is recommended
for reduction by backlog cases in court. It can be used in any case where parties are
willing to pay for the services of a private judge.
iii) Ombudsman
Usually an independent person whose role is to deal with complaints against
injustice and mal administration, with the power to investigate, criticize and publish
reports on his/her findings. He will normally have powers to recommend or order for
compensation of affected parties. Imagine the proceedings before the Uganda human
rights commissions squarely under this category.
iv) Arbitration
A private adversarial process in which the disputing parties choose a neutral
person or a panel of neutrals to hear their dispute and to render a final and binding
decision or award. The award can be enforced through the court.
Part III of the arbitration and conciliation act provides for arbitration as method of
dispute resolution by leaders or administrators.
Section 3 of the arbitration and conciliation act, provides that an arbitration
agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in a form of a
separate agreement.
v) Court mandated ADR
This is where the court orders the parties to use alternative dispute resolution in
settling their dispute. This in appropriate situations including the following:
- Where there is an arbitration clause in the contract the subject of dispute. The
court is obliged to refer a matter back to arbitration if a party so applies, in a
matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless the court finds
that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being
performed , or that there is in fact no dispute between the parties. Section 6 of
the arbitration and conciliation Act cap 4 provides for the above. It states in part
that a party to an arbitration agreement may apply to the court, before or during
arbitral proceedings for an interim measure of protection and a court may grant
that measure.
- The civil procedure rules SI.71-1 mandates a court to hold a scheduling
conference in all civil proceedings to inter alia consider the possibility of
mediation, arbitration and other form of settlement.

It is important to note that the commercial court has fully embraced the use
alternative dispute resolution (ARD). Nearly 80% of its roughly 1400 cases
filed every year are resolved through the alternative dispute resolution are not
adversarial resolution of disputes (Report of commercial court to annual judges
conference- January 2004)
- Under Statutory Instrument No 71/2003 mediation is now mandatory in all
cases filed in the commercial court after September 2003. Mediation is
conducted by trained mediators under the Center for Dispute
Resolution(CADER) established by Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Out of court settlements:
This is the procedure where the court advises parties and their lawyers to meet
informally to review the cases and attempt settlement out of court. If settlement
is reached by the parties, then the settlement is reduced in form of consent
which is signed by both parties and their lawyers or any party they choose to
help have the dispute settled. Parties may record the statement before a judge
and it is reduced in form of consent judgment by court

4.0 CASES WHERE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAY
NOT BE SUITABLE.
Alternative dispute resolution other than court litigation (adjudicative process)
may sometimes not be suitable for the following reasons:
i) Where a legal, commercial or other precedent needs to be set
ii) Where summary judgment is available fast and effective. Under Order
36 of Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 it provides for summary
proceedings meant for quick disposal of certain cases by court. For
example liquidated debts.
iii) Where parties require emergency injunctive or other protective relief.
iv) If parties are working quickly and effectively towards settlement.
v) Where publicity is actively sought. For example in cases of corruption.
vi) Where there is no real interest in settlement out of court by the parties
involved.
5.0 EMERGING ISSUES/ CHALLENGES
It is important to note that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) or
other methods of dispute resolution other than through court settlement
has faced and continues to face several challenges including:
i) Lack of support from lawyers for other methods of dispute
resolution
ii) Its a challenge to assure people that the result of such other
methods of dispute resolution is an agreement that will be
honored
iii) There is fear that lawyers who resort to other methods of dispute
resolution other than court litigation are weak lawyers.
iv) Fear that a lawyer cannot build his reputation without trial
practice
v) The fees structure for Alternative Dispute Resolution methods is
npt standard fee hence left to agreement by parties which quite
often leads to collapse of mediation.
vi) The belief among advocates that shifting from advocacy to
neutrality jeopardizes their work.
vii) That sometimes confidentiality is compromised in other methods
of dispute resolutions.
viii) Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) could stifle development
jurisprudence
6.0 CONCLUSION
The use of different methods that was originally referred as
Alternative Dispute Resolution in settlement of disputes by
leaders and administrators in our system has no doubt
contributed immensely to resolving the seeming intractable
problems facing the Uganda Judiciary. This approach is not a
new phenomenon. It works in our system and it is here to stay. It
can be efficient and effective if properly used.

I share the view of using different method by leaders to settle
disputes. I believe that Alternative Dispute Resolution methods
be an optional or complimentary mechanisms to litigation rather
a substitute. The importance our civil justice system in
determining the rights and responsibilities of a free and
democratic society must never be under mined . The alternative
techniques are not a panacea for all that ails the civil justice.

The Alternative Dispute Resolutions methods offer a variety of
techniques to assist disputants in arriving at solutions which are
more expeditions, less expensive and consequently, far less
draining from an emotional and psychological point of view for
the participants