The Aftermath of Setting Aside an Arbitral Award in Rwanda: the Crossroads of Doctrines

In recent decades, commercial arbitration has undergone substantial evolution at both international and domestic levels. The growth is primarily driven by the increasing preference of multinational corporations for arbitration, governed by trusted international rules, over domestic litigation, which may be fraught with political and legal instability risks. The practice of arbitration is anchored in fundamental principles, notably the finality and non-appealability of arbitral awards. Nonetheless, the recognized possibility to set aside defective awards enhances trust and confidence in arbitration as a reliable dispute resolution mechanism. Jurisdictions tend to follow one of three prevailing doctrines when setting aside arbitral awards: the avoidance of a denial of justice, the prioritization of party autonomy, and the “silence” doctrine. Rwanda aligns with the latter. Over a decade, arbitration has grown rapidly in Rwanda, and courts have generally been supportive of arbitration, with only a few arbitral awards being set aside. A review of these cases reveals that Rwandan courts have yet to provide clear direction on the resolution of the principal dispute after an award is set aside, leaving the substantive conflict unresolved. The absence of legal provisions on this matter contributes to uncertainty for arbitration practitioners regarding post-annulment procedures. This paper examines the current situation with a look at other jurisdictions’ practices. It ultimately recommends Rwanda to adopt an approach that emphasizes party autonomy, with courts refraining from interfering in the original arbitration agreement, except in cases where the agreement is null, void, or incapable of performance.