ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES AND THE STRUCTURE

OF MULTI-DOOR COURTHOUSES IN NIGERIA

Gogo G Otuturu* * and Dr FC Amadi****

Abstract
Traditionally, alternative dispute resolution processes operate side by side with
the regular courts as alternatives to litigation and this invariably posed the
problem of recognition and enforcement of settlement agreements and awards.
The introduction of multi-door courthouses has revolutionized alternative dispute
resolution processes by integrating them into the regular court system. Under the
Rivers State Multi-Door Court House Law 2019, for example, settlement
agreements reached through mediation, conciliation and other ADR mechanisms
are enforceable as judgements of the High Court once they have been endorsed
by an ADR Judge. This paper examines the varieties of alternative dispute
resolution processes, the history of multi-door courthouses in the United States
and the multi-door courthouse structure in Nigeria with particular reference to
the Lagos State Multi-Door Courthouse (LMDC), Abuja Multi-Door Courthouse
(AMDC) and Rivers State Multi-Door Courthouse (RSMDC). It suggests that the
various States in Nigeria should follow the AMDC and RSMDC models in
providing multi-door courthouse facilities that are fully funded by the
Government. This will give the citizens access to quicker, less expensive and more
expeditious methods of settlement of disputes than litigation.

Key words: arbitration, conciliation, hybrid processes, mediation, multi-door, negotiation

1. Introduction

Disputes are inevitable in modern societies be they traditional, industrial or commercial.

While the law seeks to avoid such disputes, it also provides different methods for resolving

them when they arise. It goes without saying that litigation is the most obvious method of

resolving disputes.

However, the high cost of litigation, the length of time required for conducting a lawsuit and

the technical rules of procedure have given rise to a number of extra-judicial methods and

procedures, which have come to be known as "alternative dispute resolution." There are four

primary alternative dispute resolution methods. These are negotiation, mediation, conciliation

and arbitration. There are also ‘hybrid’ processes such as private judging, early neutral

evaluation, neutral expert and mini-trial.

*
Gogo George Otuturu, LLB, LL.M, PhD, B.L, CBA, DipEd, AITD, ACIArb (Nigeria); Senior Lecturer
and Faculty Postgraduate Coordinator, Faculty of Law, Niger Delta University, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa
State. E-mail: otuturulaw@gmail.com; 08033036092
** **
Dr Felix C Amadi, LLB, LL.M, PhD (UK), B.L., Senior Lecturer and Head, Department of Private and
Property Law, Faculty of Law, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria. E-mail:
fca_legalchambers@yahoo.com; 08033275654
1
This paper examines the varieties of alternative dispute resolution processes available as

alternatives to litigation. It also examines the history of multi-door courthouses in the United

States of America and the multi-door courthouse structure in Nigeria with particular

reference to the Lagos State Multi-Door Courthouse (LSMDC), Abuja Multi-Door

Courthouse (AMDC) and Rivers State Multi-Door Courthouse (RSMDC). It suggests,

amongst other things, that the various States in Nigeria should follow the AMDC and

RSMDC models in providing multi-door courthouse facilities that are fully funded by the

Government to give the citizens access to quicker, less expensive and more expeditious

methods of settlement of disputes than litigation.

2. Varieties of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes

Alternative dispute resolution refers to a range of processes designed to aid parties in

resolving their disputes without the need for a formal judicial proceeding. 1 It has also been

described as a variety of dispute resolution options such as negotiation, mediation,

conciliation, arbitration and a host of hybrid mechanisms.2

The term, therefore, refers to extra judicial dispute resolution methods designed to

complement the courts and the parties in resolving disputes more quickly and cheaply than

litigation. It is not a "substitute" to litigation but an "aid" to litigation. It complements the

judicial process by resolving disputes involving on-going relationships such as commercial

disputes and family disputes with a view to maintaining such relationships between the

parties after resolving the disputes between them.

2.1 Negotiation:

1
J Farkey,‘Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Outward Court Experiment” (International Bar
Association Meeting. Lagos, 1995) 1.
2
M Ladan, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (Government Legal Advisers’ Workshop, Nigerian Institute of
Advanced Legal Studies, Lagos, 1997) 2.
2
Negotiation is the process whereby the parties attempt a settlement of their dispute without

the intervention of any third party. Negotiation is, without doubt, the first step in any genuine

effort to settle a dispute. It is also the simplest method of settling a dispute, because the

parties themselves are in the best places to know the strengths and weaknesses of their own

cases.3It involves discussions between the parties with a view to reconciling their differences

and reaching a settlement, which would be mutually beneficial to them. It is convenient,

unstructured and often preserves working relationships.4

In industrial relations parlance, negotiation with respect to the terms of the contract of

employment is encompassed in the term collective bargaining; a process in which union,

management and government engage themselves in discussing and negotiating the terms and

conditions of employment.

Unlike litigation which is based on conflicting rights of the parties, negotiation is based on

conflicting interests of the parties. The parties essentially bargain or negotiate their interests

with a view to reaching a compromise. The settlement is essentially a compromise, that is,

one party giving up something in order to get something in return. The procedure adopted by

the parties will depend largely on their skill, knowledge and experience. Generally, the

parties will first identify their areas of differences as well as their preferences. Then the

parties will make compromises until they reach a mutually satisfactory agreement.

2.2 Mediation:

Mediation is the intervention of a third party called a mediator who assists the parties to reach

a settlement of the dispute. The underlying factor in mediation is that the parties have

bargaining power and that a continuing relationship is essential after the dispute. 5 The parties

3
M Wang, ‘Are Alternative Dispute Methods Superior to Litigation in Resolving Disputes in International
Commerce?’ (2000) 2 Arbitration International 189.
4
T Wilcocks and J Laubscher, ‘Investigating Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods and the
Implementation Thereof by Architectural Professionals in South Africa’ (2017) 24(2) Acta Structilia 146,
152.
5
B Owasanoye, ‘Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Constitutional Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa’ (United
Nations Institute for Training and Research, Document No. 14, 2001) 17.
3
would, therefore, make every effort possible to avoid litigation. In view of this, the mediator

is brought in to help the parties to find a solution to the dispute. Thus, mediation is an assisted

and facilitated negotiation carried out by a third party.6

The mediator controls the process while the parties control the outcome. The mediator cannot

impose a decision on the parties; he does not suggest the terms of settlement to the parties;

and he cannot compel the parties to reach a settlement.7

In a typical mediation session, the mediator opens the session by declaring the modus

operandi and requesting the parties to confirm their good faith and trust in the process and to

agree that all that will be said will be confidential and therefore inadmissible in any

subsequent proceedings in court. If necessary, the mediator may meet with the parties

separately in a confidential caucus to assess position, identify real interest, consider

alternatives or help generate a possible solution. 8The process may involve several sessions

before a settlement agreement is reached.

Mediation is useful in cases where the parties have an on-going relationship. Thus, banking

disputes, labour disputes, landlord and tenant disputes, family disputes, community disputes

and matrimonial causes are amenable to mediation.9

2.3 Conciliation:

Conciliation is the process in which a third party called a conciliator, at the request of the

parties, seeks to bring the parties together to discuss the subject matter in dispute and reach

an amicable settlement. Conciliation proceedings are governed by the provisions of Part II of

6
SB Goldberg, FEA Sander and N Rogers, Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation and other
Processes(Little Brown and Company 1992) quoted in Wilcocks and Laubscher (n 4) 152.
7
G Ezejiofor,The Law of Arbitration in Nigeria(Longman Nigeria Plc 1997) 7.
8
Owasanoye (n 5) 17.
9
RD Harriman, ‘The Multi-Door Courthouse Concept and Justice Delivery in Nigeria’ (Being Keynote
Address at the Inauguration of the Edo State Multi-Door Courthouse, 20 January, 2017) 4.
4
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act10 and the Conciliation Rules set out in the Third

Schedule.11

A party who wishes to initiate conciliation must send to the other party a written request to

conciliate. The request must set out the subject of the dispute. If the request is accepted, the

parties shall submit the dispute to a conciliator appointed jointly by the parties, or a

conciliation body consisting of three conciliators in which case each party shall appoint one

conciliator and the two conciliators shall appoint the third conciliator.12

The conciliator or conciliation body must acquaint himself or itself, as the case may be, with

the details of the case and procure all information for the settlement of the dispute. The

parties may appear in person before the conciliator and may have legal representation. 13 After

examining the case and hearing the parties, the conciliator submits his terms of settlement to

the parties. If the parties accept the terms of settlement, the conciliator draws up and signs a

record of settlement. If the parties do not accept the terms of settlement, they may submit the

dispute to arbitration or resort to litigation.14

2.4 Arbitration:

Arbitration has been defined as a process whereby a dispute arising between two or more

parties is settled by a tribunal chosen by them. 15 It has also been defined as the reference of a

dispute or difference between not less than two parties for determination, after hearing both

sides in a judicial manner, by a person or persons other than a court of competent

jurisdiction.16

10
Cap A18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (hereinafter simply to as ACA or simply as "the Act").
11
Ibid, s. 55
12
Ibid, ss.38-40
13
Ibid, s. 41
14
Ibid. s. 41
15
JO Orojo and MA Ajomo,Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation in Nigeria (Mbeyi &
Association (Nigeria) Ltd 1999) 37.
16
V Hailsham,Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 2 (4thedn, Butterworth 1978) para.501.
5
Simply put, arbitration is the voluntary submission of a dispute to a person or body of persons

chosen by the parties for a binding decision. 17 This may result either from agreement of the

parties to the dispute or from a statute which requires the settlement of certain disputes by

arbitration. It may further arise by order of court.

In Nigeria, there are three types of arbitration. These are commercial arbitration, customary

arbitration18 and industrial arbitration.19 Commercial arbitration is governed by the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Act simply defines arbitration as “commercial

arbitration whether or not administered by a permanent arbitral institution.”20

However, the Act does not define commercial arbitration. Instead it defines “commercial” as

“all relationships of a commercial nature including any trade transaction for the supply of

goods and services, distribution agreement, commercial representation or agency, factoring,

leasing, investment, financing, banking, insurance, exploitation agreement or concession,

joint venture and other forms of industrial or business co-operation, carriage of goods or

passengers by air, sea, rail or road.”

Accordingly, commercial arbitration may be defined as the voluntary submission of a dispute

arising from relationships of a commercial nature for determination in a judicial manner by a

person or body of persons chosen by the parties. Except otherwise indicated, any further

reference to arbitration means commercial arbitration.

In order to resort to arbitration, there must be an arbitration agreement or at least an

arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties to submit any dispute between them to

arbitration. The arbitration agreement must be in writing contained in a document signed by

17
GG Otuturu, The Legal Environment of Business in Nigeria (Ano Publication 2003) 77.
18
Customary arbitration is a common mode of settling disputes in indigenous Nigerian societies whereby a
dispute is referred to the family head or an elder or elders of the community for a compromise solution
based upon the subsequent acceptance of the suggested award, which becomes binding only after such
signification of its acceptance and from which either party is free to resile at any stage of the proceedings
up to that point. See Agu v. Ikewibe (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 180) 385 at 407 per Karibi-Whyte SC.
19
Industrial Arbitration is the reference of an Industrial (or trade) Dispute to the provisions of the Trade
Dispute Act, Cap T8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
20
ACA, s 57(1).
6
the parties or in exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of communication which

provide a record of the arbitration agreement. It may also be contained in an exchange of

points of claim and points of defence in which the existence of an arbitration agreement is

alleged by one party and not denied by another.21

The parties to an arbitration agreement may specify the procedure to be followed in

appointing an arbitrator. Where no procedure is specified in the arbitration agreement, the

parties will follow the procedure specified in the Act. In the case of arbitration with three

arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator and the two thus appointed shall appoint

the third arbitrator. In the case of arbitration with one arbitrator, where the parties fail to

agree on the arbitrator, the appointment shall be made by the court on the application of any

party to the arbitration agreement.22

Arbitration is a much more formalized and court-like procedure than other alternative dispute

settlement processes. The proceedings may be conducted by holding oral arguments; or on

the basis of documents or other materials; or by both holding oral hearings and on the basis of

documents or other materials.23 At the end of the proceedings, the arbitrator or arbitration

tribunal makes an award, which is binding on the parties.

2.5 Hybrid Processes

Aside mediation, conciliation and arbitration, ADR comprises a variety of ‘hybrid’ dispute

resolution processes that use neutrals. Some of these hybrid processes are binding while

others are non-binding. The commonest hybrid processes include private judging, early

neutral evaluation, neutral expert, mini-trial and fast tract arbitration. Private judging is a

form of binding arbitration but one where the neutral is often a retired judge or private legal

practitioner who is required to make judicial decision supported by findings of fact and

conclusions of law, which are binding on the parties but subject to review as an arbitration

21
Ibid, s. 1.
22
Ibid, s. 7(2)
23
Ibid, s20(1
7
award. Early neutral evaluation is a form of court-connected mediation where the neutral

helps the parties to arrange for efficient discovery and to provide an early, impartial report

evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s claims and defences. 24 The outcomes

of neutral evaluation or neutral fact finding are not binding but the result is admissible for use

in a trial or other forum. This method is particularly useful in resolving complex scientific,

technical, sociological, business or economic issues.25

Neutral expert, as the term implies, is a third party with special subject matter expertise who

may either be selected by the parties voluntarily or by a court under its rules or the rules of

evidence. The expert conducts an investigation and then writes a report that contains his

findings of fact, which might form the basis of a negotiated settlement or, if not, it might be

admissible in court.26

According to the American Arbitration Association, ‘mini-trial is a structured dispute

resolution method in which senior executives of the parties involved in legal disputes meet in

the presence of aneutral adviser and, after hearing presentation of the merits of each side of

the dispute, attempt to formulate a voluntary settlement.’ It is a form of mediation in which

the parties select a neutral who conducts an abbreviated formal hearing where the senior

executives and lawyers from each party present the core legal argument and evidence that

will be presented in court. The role of the neutral is to work with the parties’ representatives

to see if a resolution can be negotiated.27

Fast tract arbitration is a kind of arbitration that is time bound. The agreement for the

resolution of dispute through fast tract arbitration is the same as for the ordinary arbitration

except that, in addition to the provision for arbitration, it provides that the parties have agreed

for fast tract arbitration. The parties can then adopt the fast tract arbitration rules of any
24
RH Mnookin, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (Harvard Law School John M Olin Centre for Law,
Economics and Business Discussion Paper Series, Paper 232, 1998) 6
25
Owasanoye (n5) 16.
26
Mnookin (n 24) 7.
27
V Agarwal, ‘Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Constitutional Rights in Sub-Sahara Africa’ (United
Nations Institute for Training and Research, Document No. 14, 2001) 11
8
international or national institution engaged in providing arbitration facilities. The procedure

for the appointment and challenge of arbitrator(s) is the same as in ordinary arbitration,

except that all such actions must be taken within the prescribed time limit. 28

3. Enforcement of ADR Settlement Agreements

The major challenge hitherto encountered in the use of ADR processes is the problem of

recognition and enforcement of ADR outcomes such as settlement agreements and awards

made through mediation, conciliation and arbitration respectively. This is because mediation,

conciliation and arbitration bodies do not have power to enforce the settlement agreements

and awards. For the parties to meditation and conciliation to be bound by any settlement

agreement, for example, both parties must sign it. If either party fails to sign the settlement

agreement, the entire process comes to nothing. Once the parties sign the settlement

agreement, it becomes binding on the parties as a contract between them. Thus, in the event

of any breach by either party, the settlement agreement can only be enforced through the

remedies available in the ordinary law of contract for breach of contract. 29 It is only where

mediation or conciliation is part of an out of court settlement that the settlement agreement or

the terms of settlement can be brought to court and made the subject matter of a consent

judgement between the parties.30

An arbitration award, on the other hand, is enforceable in the same manner as a judgement

obtained in a court of law. The Act provides that "an award may, by leave of the court or

judge, be enforced in the same manner as a judgement or order to the same effect." 31Thus, an

application can be made directly to the court or judge to enforce an arbitral award or to enter

judgement in terms of the award. In an action for the enforcement of an award, it must be

28
Ibid 8.
29
IS Moh,‘An Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the Dispensation of Justice in Nigeria’
in O Fagbohun and BD Olowoworan (eds),Readings in Contemporary Law and Policy Issues: Essays in
Honour of Justice Iche N. Ndu (Pearl Publishers 2008) 132
30
Hispanic Construction Ltd v. Oba Odogiyan I (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 43; NBN v. Guthrie (Nig.) Ltd
(1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 255
31
ACA, s31(2). By section 57(1), “Judge” means a Judge of the High Court of a State, the High Court of the
Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, or the Federal High Court.
9
proved that there is a contract containing an arbitration clause and a dispute within the

meaning of the clause has arisen; that an arbitrator has been appointed in accordance with the

agreement; that an award has been made and finally that the award has not been complied

with.32After obtaining the judgement or order of the court, execution can be levied under the

Sheriff and Civil Process Act.33 This is subject to the right of the other party to the arbitration

agreement to request the court or judge to refuse the recognition and enforcement of the

award.34

Where the other party to the arbitration agreement opposes the application, protracted

litigation may ensue and any party dissatisfied with the judgement of the court may

subsequently appeal to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court. 35 Thus, the

time and cost saved through arbitration will be lost when protracted litigation ensues between

the parties.

However, the introduction of multi-door courthouse facilities in some States has solved the

problem of enforcement of ADR outcomes. For example, under the Rivers State Multi-Door

Court House Law, where mediation and conciliation proceedings have been completed, any

settlement agreement duly signed by the parties shall be enforceable as a contract between the

parties36 and where such agreement is further signed by the Referral Judge in the case of a

court-referred matter or an ADR Judge in the case of a walk-in and direct intervention matter

or any other Judge as directed by the Chief Judge, it shall be deemed to be enforceable 37

under the Sheriff and Civil Process Act.38

Under section 11 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, judgements of courts may be recovered

by levy of execution against the goods, chattels, movable and immovable properties of the

32
Ezejiofor (n 7) 116.
33
Cap S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
34
ACA, s.33
35
CFRN 1999, as amended, s 242.
36
Rivers State Multi-Door Court House Law No. 9 of 2019, s 21(1).
37
Ibid, s 21(2).
38
Sheriff and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, s 11.
10
judgement debtor that are found within the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, under the Rivers

State Multi-Door Court House Law, a settlement agreement endorsed by an ADR Judge

becomes a judgement of the High Court of Rivers State and is enforceable under the Sheriff

and Civil Process Act.

However, arbitration awards are still enforced as provided for in the Rivers State Arbitration

Law,39 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 40 or any other relevant law. 41 This means that an

arbitration award obtained in the multi-door courthouse will be subjected to the same

enforcement procedure as other private arbitration awards. In this sense, the Rivers State

Multi-Door Courthouse Law has not made any significant improvement on the enforcement

of arbitration awards through the multi-door courthouse. Thus, an application for the

enforcement of an arbitration award may be resisted and this may lead to protracted litigation

and the gains of the Multi-Door Courthouse system may be lost.

History of Multi-Door Courthouse

The multi-door courthouse concept was created by Professor Frank Sander of the Harvard

Law School at a National Conference on the "Causes of Dissatisfaction with the

Administration of Justice" organized in 1976 in honour of Roscoe Pound by the American

Bar Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, and the Judicial Conference of the United

States.42 In advocating ways of reducing dissatisfaction with the administration of justice,

Professor Frank Sander proposed a Comprehensive Justice Centre where all cases coming to

the courts will be screened by a clerk to determine the most suitable forum for their

resolution: whether litigation, arbitration, mediation or other. He though it dissatisfactory for

the Civil System of Justice to offer just one form of dispute resolution technique (i.e.

litigation), knowing fully well that not all disputes are suitable for resolution by litigation.

39
Rivers State Arbitration Law No. 20 of 2019.
40
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A 19, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
41
Rivers State Multi-Door Courthouse Law, s 21(3).
42
MH Crespo ‘A Dialogue between Professors Frank Sander and Mariana Hernandez-Crespo: Exploring the
Evolution of the Multi-Door Court House’ (2008) 5(3) University of St. Thomas Law Journal 665-674
<http://www.ssrn.com/abstract---.1265221> accessed 29 April 2014.
11
In Professor Sander's own words, "one might envision, by the year 2000, not simply a court

house but a Dispute Resolution Centre, where the grievant would first be channeled through a

screening clerk, who would then direct him to the process (or sequence of processes) most

suitable for his type of case."43 Thus, the modern day court house should be a comprehensive

dispute resolution centre which will not only provide litigation as the means of resolving

disputes but also make other processes or "doors" available to disputants. The other processes

should include negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration. 44 Some of the criteria that

might help to determine the most appropriate process for resolving particular types of

disputes include nature of dispute, relationship between disputants, amount in dispute, cost

and speed.45

Professor Sander's proposal was implemented by the American Bar Association's Standing

Committee on Dispute Resolution. The Committee set up a pilot project in D.C. Superior

Court under the stewardship of the then Chief Judge of that Court with multi-door

courthouses in three places: Tulsa. Oklahoma; Houston, Texas; and Washington, D.C. 46The

programme was so successful that after four years, the Chief Judge made it a full Division of

the Court.47

It is obvious that the Multi-Door Courthouse Programme of the United States of America has

the aim of integrating alternative dispute resolution into the public justice system. Thus, the

multi-door courthouse has been described as the formal integration of alternative dispute

resolution into the court system. 48 It is a court of law in which facilities for alternative dispute

43
FEA Sander, ‘Varieties of Dispute Processing’ in A. Leo Levin and Russell R. Wheeler (eds),The Pound
Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future: Proceedings of the National Conference on Popular
Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice (St. Paul, Minnesota: West Group `976) 65-87 at p.
84<http://www.geoffsharp.atomicrobot.co.nz/wp-content/.../03/PoundConfSander.pdf> accessed 29 April
2014.
44
Ibid68.
45
Ibid72-79
46
Crespo (n42) 673.
47
B Akikiolu-Ighile (ed),Perspectives on Citizens Mediation (Lagos State Ministry of Justice 2000) 47-48.
48
KN Nwosu ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a Tool for Attraction and Protection of Business
Investments in Nigeria’ (NBA Annual General Conference, Jos, 2005) 7.
12
resolution are provided. It is called a "Multi-Door Courthouse" because of the several "doors"

or dispute resolution mechanisms which it provides.49

Professor Mariana Crespo has described the multi-door courthouse as an innovation that

routes incoming court cases to the most appropriate methods of dispute resolution, saving

time and money for both the courts and the participants or litigants. 50 According to her, it is a

paradigm challenge. The paradigm challenge is the adversarial approach to resolving

conflicts with litigation as the sole means. "Here, we move from a binary mindset where one

person wins and another loses to a win-win mindset, where the interests of both parties are

addressed."51

The success of the experiments with the multi-door courthouses in the United States has led

to the establishment of multi-door courthouses in many countries. There are multi-door

courthouses in Argentina, Nigeria and Singapore.52A study revealed that as of May 2000,

there were about 40, 000 pending cases at the Lagos High Court. Many of the cases did not

stand the chance of being concluded within a decade. 53 Thus, there were interminable delays

and congestions in the regular courts and there was an urgent need for the integration of

alternative dispute resolution processes into the civil justice system to facilitate dispute

resolution. The goal of the multi-door courthouse is to give citizens access to justice, reduce

delays in justice delivery and provide links to related services.54

The multi-door courthouse concept has revolutionized alternative dispute .resolution

processes in Nigeria. The number of referrals to mediation, conciliation and arbitration has

49
K Aina ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Relationship with Court Processes’ (NBA Annual General
Conference, Abuja, 2004) 3.
50
Crespo (n42) 666.
51
Ibid668.
52
Ibid666.
53
Y Osinbajo, ‘Reforming Civil Procedure Rules to Enhance Access to Justice in Nigeria: The Lagos State
Experience’ (NBA General Conference, Jos, 2005) 2.
54
S Ogunyannwo, ‘The Role of the Multi-Door Courthouse in the Effective Administration of Justice in
Nigeria’ (Being a Keynote Address at the 7 th Workshop of the Ogun State Bar and Bench Forum, 30June,
2016) 5.
13
grown incrementally every year and several cases, some of which had gone on in the courts

for years have been resolved within days using alternative dispute resolution methods.55

It has been reported that the Lagos Multi-Door Court House alone has successfully resolved a

total of 780 cases out of the 1, 708 cases referred to it as at 2012. Most of these cases were

referred to it from the High Court of Lagos State. The cases ranged from commercial

disputes, landlord and tenant disputes, family matters to banking cases.56

Multi-Door Courthouse Structure in Nigeria

There is no uniform structure in the Multi-Door Courthouse system in Nigeria. There are

variations in the structure and operation of the Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse (LMDC), the

Abuja Multi-Door Courthouse (AMDC) and the Rivers State Multi-Door Courthouse

(RSMDC). The LMDC, AMDC and RSMDC present three basic models of multi-door

courthouse structure in Nigeria.

The LMDC was established in 2002 as a Public-Private Partnership Initiative (PPPI) between

the High Court of Justice of Lagos State and the Negotiation and Conflict Management

Group (NCMG), a non-governmental organization. It was subsequently backed up by the

Lagos State Multi-Door Courthouse Law 2007.57It is the first court-connected Alternative

Dispute Resolution Centre in Africa.58

Thus, the LMDC is an independent non-profit body corporate established by law with

perpetual succession and a common seal. There is, however, a collaborative arrangement

between the LMDC and the Lagos State High Court of Justice and the Citizen’ Mediation

Centre of the Lagos State Ministry of Justice. 59Apart from the ADR Judges so designated by

55
Osinbajo (n53) 2.
56
C Etuk, ‘Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse Settles 780 Cases in 10 Years’ Premium Times (January 12, 2013)
<http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/114914> accessed 26 April, 2014.
57
The LMDC was established in 2002 but the Law which provides the legal framework for its operations was
enacted in 2007.
58
K Aina, ‘The Multi-Door Court House Concept: A Silent Revolution in Legal Practice’ (NBA Annual
Conference, Jos, 2005) 5.
59
Lagos State Multi-Door Courthouse Law No. 21 of 2007, s 4.
14
the Chief Judge of Lagos State,60the LMDC has a Director61 and other staff62 who are not part

of the Lagos State Ministry of Justice or the Judiciary.

The AMDC was established in 2003 by the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal

Capital Territory, Abuja, by virtue of Practice Direction prescribing the Abuja Multi-Door

Courthouse Mediation and Arbitration Procedure Rules 2003, pursuant to the Constitution of

the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended. 63Thus, the AMDC is a court-connected

ADR Centre fully integrated into the court system. The High Court of the Federal Capital

Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 now provides that a Court or Judge, with the consent

of the parties, may encourage settlement of any matter(s) before it, by either:

1. Arbitration;

2. Conciliation;

3. Mediation; or

4. Any other lawfully recognized method of dispute resolution.64

There are similar provisions in the rules of court of many States of the Federation

empowering the courts to promote alternative dispute resolution. 65 Based on the constitutional

provisions and the rules of court applicable in most States in Nigeria, the AMDC model does

not require the enactment of an enabling law for its establishment and operation. It is within

the powers of the Chief Judge under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

1999, as amended, to make practice directions for the free flow of cases from the courts for

settlement at the Multi-Door Courthouse.66

60
Ibid, s 15 empowers the Chief Judge to designate and appoint not less than three (3) Judges of the Lagos
State High Court as ADR Judges to take responsibility for the promotion of alternative dispute resolution
within the judiciary.
61
Lagos State Multi-Door Courthouse Law, s 10.
62
Ibid, ss 11-12.
63
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, s 259 empowers the Chief Judge of the
High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure
of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
64
High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, Order 17 rule 2.
65
See, for example, Bayelsa State High Court Rules 2010, Order 25; Lagos High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules 2004, Order 25; High Court Ogun State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2008, Order 25.
66
Harriman (n 9) 2.
15
The RSMDC was established under the Rivers State Multi-Door Courthouse Law 2019. The

Law empowers the Chief Judge to designate not less than five (5) Judges of the High Court of

Rivers State as ADR Judges to take responsibility for the promotion of alternative dispute

resolution within the judiciary.67Unlike the LMDC, the RSMDC has been superimposed on

the existing judicial system. Consequently, the RSMDC is a court-connected ADR Centre

fully funded by the Government of Rivers State similar to the AMDC. 68The Director69 and

other officers70of the RSMDC are staff of the Rivers State Government subject to regulation

applicable to staff of the Judiciary71 except as otherwise stated in the Law.72

Conclusion and Recommendations

The importance of alternative dispute resolution processes cannot be overemphasized. They

are quick, simple, inexpensive and technicality-free dispute resolution processes. That is why

they are most suitable for the resolution of disputes between parties who have continuing

relationships such as banking disputes, labour disputes, landlord and tenant disputes, family

disputes, community disputes and matrimonial causes.

It is true that delay may be occasioned by any of the parties applying to the court to set aside

an arbitral award or to refuse its enforcement and an appeal ensuing there from. This is

normal as every dispute resolution process has its peculiar problems. However, with the

congestion of the regular courts and interminable delays in justice delivery coupled with the

high cost of litigation, it is only reasonable that alternative dispute resolution processes

should be integrated into the regular court system. In this regard, the establishment of the

Rivers State Multi-Door Courthouse should be applauded.

67
Rivers State Multi-Door Court House Law 2019, s 17(1).
68
Security, Justice and Growth and UK Department for International Development, ‘Alternative Dispute
Resolution: Multi-Door Courthouses’ (SJG/DFID 2010) 12<http://www.j4a-nigeria.org/index.php>
accessed 29 April 2014.
69
Rivers State Multi-Door Courthouse Law 2019, s 10.
70
Ibid, ss 11-12.
71
Ibid, s 15.
72
See, for example, s 14 for the determination of fees payable to the Panel of Neutrals for services rendered to
the RSMDC.
16
The key feature of the original multi-door courthouse concept is that once cases are filed at

the regular court registry, an initial screening clerk will scrutinize the claims and direct the

litigant to the appropriate door.73 However, what obtains in practice is that, in most cases, it is

the Judge who decides whether or not to refer a case to the Multi-Door Courthouse if, in his

opinion or at the request of the parties, it is believed that the matter is not suitable for

litigation.74

It is suggested that cases filed in the registry of the High Court in States with the multi-door

courthouses should subjected to initial screening by the Registrar or any person designated by

the Chief Judge as Screening Clerk. This individual could readily screen out those cases

which need not take a court's time and preserve the adjudicatory processes for those cases

where the issues have been properly joined and where there is a genuine dispute of fact or

law.75 This does not, however, remove the powers of the Judges to refer deserving cases to

the ADR Centre in appropriate cases for resolution.

It is also suggested that an arbitration award obtained in the multi-door courthouse should be

endorsed by the ADR Judge and enforced directly as the judgement of the court.This will

eliminate the need for further application to the court for the recognition and enforcement of

the arbitration award in accordance with the relevant arbitration law. It will also save the time

and cost associated with the enforcement of arbitration awards under the Rivers State

Arbitration Law76 or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act77or any other relevant law.

It is further suggested that the various States in Nigeria should follow the AMDC and

RSMDC models in providing multi door courthouse facilities that are not only integrated into

the existing court system but also fully funded by the Government. This will give the citizens

73
Sander (n43) 84
74
A Akeredolu, ‘Enforceability of Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreements: What is New under the Lagos
Multi-Door Court House Law?’ (2010) 6(1) Nigerian Bar Journal 202-212.
75
Sander (n43) 78.
76
Rivers State Arbitration Law 2019.
77
Cap A18, LFN, 2004.
17
access to quicker, less expensive and more expeditious methods of settlement of disputes than

litigation.

18