Anytime from now, the Court of Appeal will throw the doors of its ADR Centre open to appellants in the Lagos Division for the amicable resolution of appeal matters through the process of mediation. The centre has since commenced mediation at the Abuja Division of the court.
The emergence of the Court of Appeal ADR Centre has not only introduced serving and retired judges of superior courts of record as Mediators, it has also institutionalised the concept of co- mediators in the resolution of disputes in our jurisdiction. By these developments, the Court of Appeal has stepped into the ADR sphere as a game changer. Under the Court of Appeal (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules 2021, a Mediator means a serving or retired Judge or Justice of a Superior Court of record assigned by the President (of the Court of Appeal) to deal with matters referred to the Court of Appeal ADR Centre (CAADRC) for resolution. A Co-Mediator on the other hand is defined as a professional and technical expert (legal and Non-Legal Professionals) who will co-mediate the dispute between the parties and give expert opinion or support to the Mediator.
The foregoing definitions, which have the force of law, should not come as any surprise to members of the public, firstly because this is the very first time that judges are being formally assigned the role of mediators in Nigeria, and secondly because the level of interaction is at the appellate levels which must be of the highest quality in all circumstances.
The Court of Appeal can also be seen as institutionalising the practice of co-mediation where two or more mediators are assigned to manage each case. It perhaps should not be anything different since appellate cases have never been known to be decided by a single judge.
Writing on the subject matter of co-mediation, Joe Epstein and Susan Epstein note that ‘’co-mediation requires careful preparation, planning, and communication between the mediators, as well as between the mediators and the parties. Also, co-mediation allows mediators with different talents and expertise to help the parties actually determine the direction the mediation process will take to resolve their dispute. Efficiency is enhanced because the mediators can divide the work before, during, and, if necessary, after the mediation.’’
In the preamble to the ADR Rules, the Court states amongst other things that the overriding objective of the ADR Programme include to promote a just and speedy determination of civil appeals, interlocutory or substantive, which have been brought and are pending before the Court in matters relating to breach of contract, liquidated money demand and matrimonial causes. Other subject matters which the Centre will handle as matters of primary concern are child custody, parental actions, inheritance, chieftaincy or personal actions in tort or such other matters as may be mutually agreed by the parties.
Referral of matters to the Court of Appeal ADR Centre shall be within 21 days of the entry of an appeal to the Court Registry, if any or both parties indicate an interest in pursuing the alternative dispute resolution process. On the other hand, the Court may of its own volition refer matters already pending before it to the ADR Centre whenever it deems it appropriate to do so.
Where the Court refers an appeal to its ADR Centre, hearing of the appeal shall be adjourned to a definite date not more than three months for the outcome of the ADR between the parties. The import of this provision is that the referral shall constitute a stay of proceedings of any ongoing case until such stated time when mediation may have resolved the case or otherwise.
The rules provide that each mediation session shall be conducted at such place, time or medium as the Centre or Mediator may direct, taking into account any wishes expressed by the parties. This means that mediations may be held online or at venues outside the usual court premises.
Where the party is a corporate entity, the Managing Director or Executive Director or such other Senior designated Manager with first-hand knowledge of the matter shall attend the mediation session at the place and time specified in the notice. This express mention of corporate chief executives’ attendance at mediation at the Appeal Court would appear the much-desired kiss of goodbye to the practice where corporate organizations usually instruct counsel or some middle level managers with no authority to settle to represent them at the mediation and to play for time without any intentions of resolving the dispute.
In concluding this piece, it is worth observing that the Court of Appeal Mediation Programme has long been in the books without actual implementation. It is in this regard that one must commend the current President of the Court, Hon Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem for not only breathing life into the programme, but for also personally taking on the role of Mediator at the very first mediation session of the Court. This indeed is a new dawn for the validation of mediation as a judicially endorsed process.