Fact Finding and Dispute Resolution – LawPedia Explaine
Disputes are part of human life, and societies need structured ways to resolve them. Historically, primitive methods like trial by ordeal were used—e.g., throwing a baby into water to see if “God intervened”—but such practices are now illegal and inconsistent with modern justice. Modern dispute resolution is handled through adjudicatory methods (courts and tribunals) or non-adjudicatory methods (Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR).
1. Adjudicatory Method (Litigation)
This formal system involves settling disputes in courts or tribunals. Parties present evidence, and a judge or tribunal issues a binding decision. Fact finding—the process of determining what happened—is central. (Learn more about fact finding).
1.1 Approaches to Fact Finding
Two major approaches exist:
a. Adversarial Method
- Common in Nigeria.
- Lawyers control the case; judges act as neutral referees.
- Evidence is presented through examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination.
Criminal cases:
- The prosecution must present evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Woolmington v. D.P.P).
- The accused need not prove innocence unless it is a res ipsa loquitur case (“the facts speak for themselves”), e.g., leaving a surgical knife inside a patient (Scott v. London and St. Katherines Docks Co).
Advantages:
- Judges remain neutral
- Equal opportunity for parties
- Encourages creative legal arguments
- Court decisions are binding
Disadvantages:
- Wealthy parties may have advantage
- Cases can drag for years
- Risk of manipulated evidence (Whitehouse v. Jordan)
b. Inquisitorial Method
- Judges actively investigate facts and question witnesses.
- Used in tribunals and civil law systems (More on inquisitorial systems).
Advantages:
- Faster and simpler
- Less expensive
- Fairer access regardless of lawyers’ skill
Disadvantages:
- Risk of overlooked facts
- Parties’ arguments have less impact
- Sometimes trials are private, reducing transparency
2. Non-Adjudicatory Methods (Alternative Dispute Resolution – ADR)
ADR resolves disputes outside courts and is encouraged under Nigerian law, including Arbitration and Conciliation Act and civil procedure rules. (Learn about ADR)
Common Types of ADR
a. Reconciliation
- Parties try to restore harmony.
- Example: Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 §6 requires divorce lawyers to discuss reconciliation.
b. Conciliation
- A conciliator proposes settlement terms; generally non-binding.
- Parties meet together to negotiate.
c. Mediation
- A mediator facilitates settlement without imposing a decision.
- Parties usually meet separately. (More on mediation)
d. Arbitration
- Parties agree in advance to resolve disputes through an arbitrator.
- Arbitrator’s decision is binding and enforceable, similar to court judgments.
Judicial Support:
- Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Ltd (2018) – enforcement of mediation agreements upheld.
- Statoil (Nig) Ltd v. Inducon (Nig) Ltd (2014) – enforcement of arbitration clauses.
Advantages of ADR
- Faster than courts
- Less expensive
- Parties control outcomes
- Preserves relationships
- Flexible procedures (More on ADR)
Disadvantages of ADR
- Decisions (except arbitration) are not always binding
- Voluntary participation required
- May not punish wrongdoers
- Costs for venues and arbitrators
Institutions Supporting ADR in Nigeria
- Citizens’ Mediation Centre (CMC, Lagos) – statutory mediation forum for landlord–tenant and commercial disputes (More info)
- Federal and State ADR Centers embedded in High Courts (Reference)
Key Legal References
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 – Section 19(d) (Link)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Link)
- Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 §6 (Link)
- Judicial Authorities: Woolmington v D.P.P, Scott v London & St. Katherines Docks Co, Whitehouse v Jordan, Mekwunye v Lotus Capital Ltd, Statoil v Inducon