Arbitration as an effective mechanism for resolving land disputes in Uganda: a comparative Analysis

Abstract

Land disputes represent a critical challenge to property rights, social stability, and economic development in Uganda, affecting approximately 33% of landholding households and imposing estimated economic costs of 5–11% of agricultural Gross domestic product annually. Despite the existence of a comprehensive legal framework for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Cap. 5), and arbitration's demonstrated effectiveness in Uganda's commercial, construction, and oil and gas sectors, its application to land dispute resolution remains minimal. This study investigated the structural and institutional barriers to arbitration adoption in land disputes and assessed arbitration's potential effectiveness as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in Uganda. The study employed a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design, combining documentary analysis of legal frameworks, policy documents, and institutional reports with in-depth qualitative interviews, direct observation of dispute resolution proceedings, and a structured quantitative survey of 55 participants drawn from across Uganda's four major regions. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using NVivo 14, while quantitative data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistical analysis using SPSS 28, including ANOVA, chi-square tests, and correlation analysis. The findings revealed multiple interconnected barriers preventing arbitration adoption. Economic barriers were most pervasive, with arbitration costs – estimated at Uganda Shillings 2–4 million for standard proceedings – placing services beyond the reach of the majority of rural landholders. Institutional barriers included limited arbitrator expertise in land law and tenure systems, the geographic concentration of arbitration services in urban centres, and inadequate coordination with existing dispute resolution mechanisms. Legal framework gaps – particularly the absence of land-specific arbitration procedures – and cultural preferences for public, community-based resolution processes further constrained adoption. Notwithstanding these barriers, comparative analysis demonstrated arbitration's significant advantages: resolution averaged six months compared to 42 months through court litigation, and stakeholders broadly acknowledged arbitration's potential, with 63.6% viewing it as suitable for certain land dispute categories. The study's primary output is the Integrated Arbitration Development Framework (IADF), a structured, evidence-based model for institutionalising arbitration within Uganda's land governance system. The framework is organised around four interdependent pillars: legal and regulatory reform, capacity development and professionalisation, institutional infrastructure and accessibility, and quality assurance and public awareness. Key recommendations include amending the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to address land-specific matters, establishing regional arbitration centres, developing a national register of certified land arbitrators with specialised training in land tenure and customary law, integrating arbitration into court referral systems, and implementing public education campaigns to build awareness and trust. This research concludes that arbitration holds considerable, largely unrealised potential for improving land dispute resolution in Uganda. Realising this potential requires coordinated, simultaneous action across legal, institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions rather than piecemeal reform.