Adjudication in Uganda: A Critique of Selected Rulings from Centre of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (CADER)

Adjudication is a widely recognized Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism, particularly in the construction industry, due to its speed, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and privacy. This article examines the nature of adjudication in Uganda, focusing on its application in contractual and ad hoc forms, as the country lacks a statutory adjudication framework like that of England and Wales. The study critiques selected rulings from the Centre of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (CADER) that erroneously equate adjudication with arbitration, highlighting the distinct roles, outcomes, and legal bases of these ADR mechanisms. While adjudication provides a temporarily binding decision, arbitration offers a final and binding resolution, underscoring the importance of differentiating their procedures. The paper emphasizes the need for practitioners to adhere to pre-existing contractual provisions and avoid conflating adjudication clauses with arbitration agreements. Furthermore, it advocates for clearer statutory guidelines and better understanding among practitioners to ensure proper administration of adjudication in Uganda's construction industry.