TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ................................................................................... .
CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................... VI
LIST OF STATUTES .............................................................................. VII
LIST OF CASES .................................................................................... VIII
ABSTRACT........................................................................................ IX
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
I. I.Historical Background .......................................................................... .
1.2.Problem statement........................................................................................ 3
1.3.Aim and Objectives . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . ... 3
1.4.Significance of the Study....................................................................... 4
1.5.Research Questions...................................................................................... 4
1.6.Research Methodology............................................................................ 4
1.7.Scope of the Study ............................................................................... 4
1.8.Literature Review................................................................................ 5
1.9.0perational Definitions........................................................................ 12
CHAPTER TWO
LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2.1 History of Mediation........................................................................... 13
2.1.1 Types ofMediation......................................................................... 15
2.2. History of Negotiation.......................................................................... 17
2.3. Legal and Regulatory framework for Negotiation.......................................... 18
2.4. Legal and Regulatory framework for Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... 22
iv
CHAPTER THREE
EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIATION
AND NEGOTIATION
3.1 Role ofRegulators .............................................................................. 26
3.2 Effectiveness ofMediation......................... .... ............... ...... ................ 29
3.3 Effectiveness of Negotiation .................................................................... 40
CHAPTER FOUR
CHALLENGES OF MEDIATION
AND NEGOTIATION
4. I Challenges of Mediation . . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. ...... 47
4.2 Challenges of Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMENDATION
5. I Summary . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . 58
5. 2 Conclusion . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . 59
5 .3 Recommendations........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 60
References
ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to analyze mediation and negotiation and its effectiveness in the administration of justice in Uganda. The study revealed that Mediation and negotiation are tools of alternative dispute resolution, which allow parties to a dispute to find a quick solution with the assistance of a neutral third party and are now permanent features in our comt processes. It was further revealed that mediation and negotiation are needed in the effective administration of justice because they provide a quicker, more amicable and less costly resolution of disputes in society. Through the review of laws, books, court and statistical reports, the effectiveness of mediation and negotiation in the administration of justice was ascertained. This research unearthed the fact that comt annexed and private mediation plus negotiation have been a great success in the administration of justice primarily through the reduction case backlog, promotion of reconciliation in society and reduction of costs related to resolving disputes. The study recommended the need for more training of judicial and legal practitioners in negotiation and mediation skills, expansion of mandatory mediation to include judicial review and small claims procedures, strengthening of currently legislative framework to empower mediators with powers to enforce mediation agreements, enforce attendance and issue interim orders plus legal provisions to deter unethical practices. On account of the successes attributable to Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms of Mediation and Negotiation, it is recommended that society, particularly the business community, employ the said tools to resolve disputes to ensure justice.