Name: Moro Ali

Index Number: 3454509

IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SHOULD REPLACE LITIGATION IN RESOLVING DISPUTES IN THE RURAL AREAS. DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS VIEW? GIVE REASONS FOR YOUR ANSWER. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Bill based on a modified United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) Model Law which was elaborated from June 2000 and finally passed in 2010 replaced the Arbitration Act of 1961, Act 38; to bring the law governing arbitration in Ghana into harmony with international treaties, rules and practices in arbitration; to provide the legal and institutional framework that will facilitate and encourage the settlement of disputes through ADR procedures; and to regulate customary arbitration through legislation. Alternative Dispute Resolution is made up of procedures and various processes for resolving disputes other than through court trial. According to ADR Act of 2010 Act (798), ADR is the collective description of methods of resolving disputes otherwise than through the normal trial process. ADR involves the presentation of a dispute to an impartial or neutral individual (arbitrator) or panel (arbitration panel) for issuance of a binding decision. Unless arranged otherwise, the parties usually have the ability to decide who the individuals are that serve as arbitrators. In some cases, the parties may retain a particular arbitrator (often from a list of arbitrators) to decide a number of cases or to serve the parties for a specified length of time (this is common when a panel is involved). Parties often select a different arbitrator for each new dispute. A common understanding by the parties in all

cases, however, is that they will be bound by the opinion of the decision maker rather than simply be obligated to "consider" an opinion or recommendation. Under this method, the third party's decision generally has the force of law but does not set a legal precedent. It is usually not reviewable by the courts. On the other hand, litigation may be defined as the use of the courts by an aggrieved person to settle a legal disagreement or a legal dispute with another person. The person who is aggrieved and takes action in court is known as the plaintiff and the person against whom the action is taken is known as the defendant. I strongly agree that ADR should be used to resolve disputes in rural areas. My reasons are stated below:

ADR Saves time (You decide the beginning and the end): Most rural areas in Ghana are agrarian and the populaces need to spend much of their time on the farms in other to increase productivity that will meet the growing needs of the country. Unlike legal action where the court give you a date and time to appear for your case to be heard whether it favors you or not, with ADR the parties in dispute with the arbitrator decides on a favorable day and time to start and end in arbitration. Again in most rural settings there are no law courts and people have to move to nearby towns to seek for justice where the could have used their Chiefs or any leader to get same justice or better, and due to congestion at the law courts it is now a tradition that judgment is not passed on a case on its first hearings and this normally is time wasting as lawyers and their clients have to make numerous returns to the law courts on the same case. At time people may even be present at the court premises but will not get the opportunity for their case to be heard due to the congestion and this in a long way waste there time which could have been used for productive activities. ADR makes for fast tract (expedited) arbitration allowing for shorter hearings and the use of telephone or electronic means of communication to speed up the arbitral process.

ADR save money: When cases are resolved earlier through ADR, the parties may save some of the money they would have spent on attorney fees, court costs, and experts fees. In Ghana settling of disputes through litigation is very costly and this is normally above the capabilities of the rural people. It cost about GH50 for the filling of a case in the law court and this excludes your expenses and the charge of a lawyer but with ADR the parties in dispute come together pay for the service of the mediator and at time no fee is paid.

ADR increase contentment: In a trial (litigation), there is typically a winner and a loser. The loser is not likely to be happy, and even the winner may not be completely satisfied with the outcome. ADR can help the parties find win-win solutions and achieve their real goals. This, along with all of ADRs other potential advantages, may increase the parties overall satisfaction with both the dispute resolution process and the outcome.

Safeguard Relationships: ADR can be a less adversarial and hostile way to resolve a dispute. For example, an experienced mediator can help the parties effectively communicate their needs and point of view to the other side. This can be an important advantage where the parties have a relationship to preserve. Parties can go back to being friends and working together. And since populace of rural communities are always seen as one culturally this will foster unity, harmony and healthy living. Because of the winner-take-all in litigation, there is always enmity after judgment is passed and some become enemies for life. Also litigation has the tendency of breaking family ties.

ADR increase Control over the Process and the Outcome: In ADR, parties typically play a greater role in shaping both the process and its outcome. In most ADR processes, parties have more opportunity to tell their side of the story than they do at trial. Some ADR processes, such as mediation, allow the parties to fashion creative resolutions that are not available in a trial. Other ADR processes, such as arbitration, allow the parties to choose an expert in a particular field to decide the dispute. In this regard since most people in the areas are less educated ADR would be preferable to litigation. Litigation demands higher education (tuition) before one understand how the court system work and hence not good for rural areas.

In conclusion, it can be seen from the above that the benefit of ADR to the ordinary man is that people will not have to, as a matter of necessity, go to the court on any small issue. People will have the opportunity to handle issues in a more amicable and familiar setting rather than the officious atmosphere that the courts present. As well, those who by their circumstances are not able to access the courts are able to have an alternative. Therefore ADR should be used to settle disputes in rural areas instead of litigation.

References:

Alternative Dispute Resolution bill memorandum (Attorney-Generals Office, 20 June 2000).

Amazu A. Asouzu-international commercial arbitration and African states, Cambridge university press (2001)

y y

Modernghana.com Wikipedia