2020ARBITRATIONINAFRICASURVEYREPORTTopAfricanArbitralCentresandSeats

EMILIAONYEMA

Sponsors:

2

AuthorbiographyEmiliaOnyemaisaReaderinInternationalCommercialLawandInterimPro-DirectorLearningandTeachingandteachesinternationalcommercialarbitrationandinternationalinvestmentlawatSOASUniversityofLondon.SheisqualifiedtopracticelawinNigeria, isaSolicitor inEngland&Wales,FellowofCharteredInstituteofArbitrators,SeniorFellowoftheHEAandpracticesasanindependentarbitrator.SheconvenestheSOASArbitrationinAfricaconferenceseriesandleadstheSOASArbitrationinAfricasurveyresearchproject.HerresearchinterestsfocusonthedevelopmentofinternationalarbitrationinAfricaandtheengagementofAfricansin international arbitration. It further interrogates the intersections of the discourses ondiversityandracewithparticularreferencetoAfrica,ininternationalarbitration.Email:eo3@soas.ac.ukCopyright:©2020EmiliaOnyema.ThisisanopenaccessreportundertheCCBYlicense(https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/)EmiliaOnyemaOrchidID:https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2922-9306

PUBLICATIONDATE:JUNE30,2020

3

TableofContents

Introduction.............................................................................................................................4

ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................5

Methodology............................................................................................................................6

FindingsoftheSurvey..............................................................................................................8

InstitutionalArbitration.........................................................................................................11

AdhocArbitration..................................................................................................................17

SeatofArbitration..................................................................................................................19

4

Introduction

ThisisthesecondseriesofthebiennialArbitrationinAfricasurvey.This2020surveyfocusedon identifying the top African arbitral centres and top African cities for the conduct ofarbitrationasvotedbytheusersofarbitrationinAfricathroughanonlinequestionnaire.TheresponsestothequestionnaireweresupplementedbyindependentcodinganalysistoidentifythetopandbusiestarbitralcentresinAfrica.WearegratefultoMrSopuruchiChristian,anLLMcandidateatSOASUniversityofLondonforhisresearchassistanceandtoDrJean-AlainPendaMatipeandMsVianHilliforthetranslationsofthesurveyquestionsintoFrenchandArabicrespectively.WeareverygratefultothelawfirmofBroderickBozimo&Co,AbujaandtheAfricanLegalSupportFacilityfortheirsponsorshipofthisproject.

5

ExecutiveSummary

350responseswerereceivedfromindividualsin34countriesacrossAfrica,Asia,MiddleEast,NorthAmerica,andEurope.83% (289) of the respondents have participated in arbitration in Africa over the reportingperiod(2010-2019).60%(210)oftherespondentshaveparticipatedininstitutionalarbitrationinAfricaoverthereportingperiod.48% (168) of the respondents have participated in ad hoc arbitration in Africa over thereportingperiod.Therespondentshaveparticipatedinthesearbitrationsindifferentcapacities:asarbitrator,counsel,tribunalsecretary,expertanddisputants.Thetopfivearbitralcentres inAfricaasdeterminedbyanindependentcodingexerciseareArbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA); Cairo Regional Centre for InternationalCommercial Arbitration (CRCICA); Ouagadougou Arbitration and Mediation & ConciliationCentre(OAMCC);OHADACommonCourtofJusticeandArbitrationCentre(CCJA);andKigaliInternationalArbitrationCentre(KIAC).ThetopfivearbitralcentresinAfricaaschosenbytherespondentsareAFSA,CRCICA,KigaliInternationalArbitrationCentre(KIAC),LagosCourtofArbitration(LCA),andNairobiCentreforInternationalArbitration(NCIA).ThetoparbitralcentreinAfricaasdeterminedbycaseloadthatadministersadhoccasesisInternationalCentreforArbitrationandMediationAbuja(ICAMA).Thetopfivearbitralcentreswiththebestsupportfacilitiesaschosenbytherespondentsare:AFSA,CRCICALCA,NCIA,andCCJA.The top five African cities that host arbitration as chosen by the respondents are:Johannesburg,Lagos,Cairo,CapeTownandDurban.ThetopfiveAfricancountriesthatactasseatofarbitrationare:SouthAfrica,Nigeria,Egypt,Rwanda,andCoted’Ivoire.88%(307)oftherespondentswillrecommendAfricanarbitralcentres.

6

Methodology

Anonlinequestionnaire composedof a combinationof27 closedandopenquestionswascirculated broadlywithin the international arbitration community for completion. The vastmajorityofresponseswasfromindividualsinthreeAfricancountries(SouthAfrica,NigeriaandEgypt).Itisimportantthatthisiskeptinviewinunderstandingtheresultsofthesurveyastherespondents were requested to respond in accordance with their own experience andknowledge of arbitration in Africa. It is apparent that the respondents could speak to thearbitralcentresandcitiestheyweremorefamiliar.To ameliorate the possible impact of the limitations to the online questionnaire, it wassupplementedbyaveryshortfocusedquantitativeanalysisbasedonthreebroadquestionstargetedonlyatarbitrationcentresoperatinginAfrica.1WechosecommonindicatorsbasedonobjectivedatathatcanbequantitativelymeasuredinrankingthearbitralcentresinAfrica.Thefocusedquestionsreliedonlyontheinformationprovidedbyarbitralcentres.Thelimitednumberofarbitralcentresthatrespondedalsoimpactedontheresults.73arbitralcentreswithanonlinepresencewereemaileddirectlyviacontactemailsontheirwebsitesorthroughthecompletionofacontactformontheirwebsite.Ten(10)Africanarbitralcentresrespondedtothequestionsprovidingrelevant informationonthenumberofcasestheyhaveadministeredsincetheycommencedbusinessandthelistofotherarbitralcentreswithwhichtheyhaverelationships.Wesearchedthewebsitesoftheotherarbitralcentrestofind these data but did not find any such data. Of the ten centres, one centre has notadministeredanyarbitrationthoughithasadministeredsomemediationreferences.2Wehavethereforerankedthenine(9)arbitralcentresthathaveadministeredarbitrationreferences.Theseadditionaldatafromthearbitralcentressupplementedtheinformationfromtheonlinesurveyandtherewasveryclosecorrelationbetweenbothresults.We coded the number of arbitration cases each centre had administered since theycommencedbusiness,andtheiroutreachtoothercentresinrankingthecentres.WecodedonlythesetwofactorstoensureconsistencyandequalityofapplicationandtoalsosimplifytherankingsincetheseweretworelevantfactorsthatallAfricanarbitralcentrescanprovideinformation.3 The primary function of any arbitral centre or institution is to administerarbitrationcases.Suchadministrationiseffectivefromthepublicationofbespokearbitrationrules, registration of arbitration references or cases, appointment of arbitrators, casemanagement,provisionofhearingsupportfacilities,deliveryofawards,andpaymentofthearbitrators and other service providers. It is this experience of administering arbitrationdisputesthatistheveryreasonfortheexistenceofsuchcentres.Otheractivitiesofarbitralcentressupportthisprimaryactivity.4Foreacharbitrationadministeredundertherulesoftheinstitution,weallocatedanotionalvalueof1and foreacharbitrationwhetheradhocor institutionalbutadministeredunder

1Thequestionsaskedfortheyearthecentrecommencedbusiness;thenumberofarbitrationcasesithasadministeredandthelistofMemorandaofUnderstandingorAssociationithasconcludedwithotherarbitralcentres.2 TheLibyanCentreforInternationalCommercialArbitrationhasadministeredfour(4)mediations. 3 Forfutureiterationsofthisrankingexercise,wecanapplyamultidimensionaltoolorconceptwhichwilltakemorefactorsintoconsideration.Suchfactorswill include:howlongthecentrehasbeeninbusiness;differentweightingfordomestic,intra-Africa and international cases; organisational structure; number of support staff; number of languages the centreoperates;typesofdisputesthecentreattracts;amountsindisputeorcomplexityofthedisputes;nationalitiesofdisputants,counselandarbitrators. 4 Suchactivitiesincludetraining,conferencesandotherknowledgeexchangeactivitieswhicharehowevernotcoretothebusinessofarbitralcentresandthereforenotaccountedforintherankingofAfricanarbitralcentres.

7

other rules, we allocated a notional value of 0.5. These values evidence our focus on theexperienceofeachcentreintheactualmechanicsofadministeringanarbitration.Thenotionalvalue of 1 for those arbitration cases administered under its rules will require greaterinvolvementofthecentreanditsstaff, irrespectiveofthedisputebeingpurelydomesticorinternational.However,wherethecentreprovidessupportforadhocarbitrationorhostsarbitrationunderthe rules of a different arbitral centre, its involvementmay be very limited. The differentpermutationsofsuchsupportarevaried.Examplesareprovidingphysicalspacesforhearings,fundholdingfunctions,appointingarbitrators(asappointingauthority),providingtranslationandsecretarialsupportservices.Foreaseofcalculation,allsuchservicesinsupportofotherarbitrationsnotunderthebespokearbitrationrulesofanycentreareallocatedanotionalvalueof0.5.ArbitralcentresinAfricaconcludeseveraldifferenttypesofmemorandaofunderstandingorassociation(MoU)withdiverseotheragenciesandgroupsprimarilyforknowledgeexchangeandlearningbutalsowithotherarbitralcentrestoprovidearbitrationadministrationfocusedmutualsupport.TheknowledgerelationshipsarenotcoretothebusinessofanarbitralcentreandweexcludedtheMoUsthatareconcludedwithorganisationsthatarenotarbitralcentres(suchasuniversities).Relationshipswithotherarbitralcentresevidenceinteraction,learningandsharingofexperienceamongarbitrationcentres,inpursuitofexcellenceintheirservicedelivery.Italsoevidencestheexternalreachofthecentre.Wehaveallocatednotionalvaluestosuchrelationshipswithotherarbitralcentres.Werecognisethatsuchrelationshipsmaybelocalised(withinthesamecountry),orwithcentresinotherAfricancountriesoroutsidetheAfricancontinent.Foreachrelationshipthecentreshavewithothercentreswithinthesamecountryweallocatedanotionalvalueof0.2;andforeachrelationshipwithcentresinotherAfrican countries,we allocated a notional value of 0.3 and 0.4 for relationshipswith non-African centres.5 The valuation is to account for the relativeoutward vision andpursuit ofinternationalstandardsandexcellenceofsucharbitralcentreswhileacknowledgingthattheexistenceofsuchMoUs,thoughdesirable,isnotcoretotheeffectiveorefficientoperationofthecorebusinessofthearbitralcentre.WeappliedthesenotionalvaluesinrankingthenineAfricanarbitralcentres.Finally,werecognisethatthecodingexerciseforthisrankingwasbasedonlimitedfactors.Wehowever expect that our subsequent ranking of African arbitral centres will includemorediverse factors (already mentioned) as access to relevant information is provided by thecentres.

5Werecognise thatother factorssuchas thesizeof thecentre, its regional location,economicgrowthoractivities,andgeographiclocationinthecontinentmayalsoimpacttheassessmentoftheweightingandratingofeachcentre.Wehoweverbelievethatforpurposesofthisratingexercise,wehavevaluedtherelevantfactors.

8

FindingsoftheSurvey

ThisreportpresentsthefindingsfromthesurveywhichfocusedonidentifyingthetopAfricanarbitralcentresandthetopAfricanseatsforarbitrationbytheusersofarbitrationinAfrica.Thereportingperiodfortheonlinequestionnairewas2010-2019whilethedataforthecodingexercise provided by the arbitral centres cover the period from when they commencedbusinessuntil2020.Respondents350individualsrespondedtotheonlinesurvey6.Theonlinesurveywasliveforeightweeksandextendedbyanotherweekbecauseof theCovid-19pandemicand in response to requestsfromsomemembersofthearbitrationcommunityinAfrica.Theserespondentswerefrom26Africancountries7andeightnon-Africancountries.8ThehighestnumberofresponseswerefromSouthAfrica(97);Nigeria(75);Egypt(44);Kenya(30);CameroonandBenin(12each).AndthehighestnumberofresponsesfromoutsidetheAfricancontinentwasfromFranceandtheUKwith11responseseach.

No Country NoofRespondents

1 SouthAfrica 97

2 Nigeria 75

3 Egypt 44

4 Kenya 30

5 Benin 12

6 Cameroon 12

7 France 11

8 UK 11

9 Chad 10

10 Zambia 5

11 Rwanda 4

12 Tunisia 4

13 Ghana 3

14 Tanzania 3

15 Botswana 2

16 CentralAfricaRepublic 2

17 Libya 2

No Country NoofRespondents

18 Morocco 2

19 Niger 2

20 Senegal 2

21 Togo 2

22 UAE 2

23 USA 2

24 Burkina-Faso 1

25 Canada 1

26 Djibouti 1

27 Ethiopia 1

28 HongKong 1

29 India 1

30 Mauritius 1

31 SaudiArabia 1

32 Seychelles 1

33 Sudan 1

34 Zimbabwe 1

Figure1:TableshowingthenumberofrespondentsbyCountry.

6Anincreaseof151responsesonthe199responsestoour2018survey. 7 Benin(12),Botswana(2),BurkinaFaso(1),Cameroon(12),CentralAfricaRepublic(2),Chard(10),Djibouti(1),Egypt(44),Ethiopia(1),Ghana(3),Kenya(30),Libya(2),Mauritius(1),Morocco(2),Niger(2),Nigeria(75),Rwanda(4),Senegal(2),Seychelles(1),SouthAfrica(97),Sudan(1),Tanzania(3),Togo(2),Tunisia(4),Zambia(5),andZimbabwe(1). 8 Canada(1),France(11),HongKong(1),India(1),SaudiArabia(1),UAE(2),UK(11),andUSA(2).

9

83%oftherespondentshaveparticipatedinarbitrationinAfricaoverthereportingperiod.

Figure2:ColumnChartshowingthenumberofpeoplewhoparticipatedinArbitrationinAfrica.RespondentshadparticipatedinbothinstitutionalandadhocarbitrationinAfrica

61

289

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

No Yes

Yes60% (210)

No40% (140)

Figure3:PiechartshowspercentageofrespondentswhoparticipatedinInstitutionalArbitration.

10

Respondentshaveparticipatedasarbitrator,counsel,tribunalsecretary,expertanddisputantsinarbitrations.9

Figure4:Barchartshowingnumberofoccasionsrespondentsparticipatedinroles.SurveyLanguagesTheonlinequestionnairewasinthethreemajorlanguagesofArabic,EnglishandFrench.1047respondentscompletedtheArabicversion;56respondentscompletedtheFrenchversionand247respondentscompletedtheEnglishversionoftheonlinequestionnaire.

Figure5:Columnchartshowingnumberofrespondentsbylanguage.

9RespondentsincludedtheICC,LCIA,andPCAwhicharenon-Africancentresintheirresponsesandwehaveignoredtheseresponsesforpurposesofthisreport.10WerecognisethatweneedtoincludeaversioninPortuguesetocapturetheviewsofarbitrationpractitionersintheLusophoneAfricancountriesofAngola,CapoVerde,GuineaBissau,Mozambique,andSaoTomeandPrincipe.

163

144

105

99

107

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

NUMBEROOFOCCASIONS

AsDisputant AsExpert AsTribunalSecretary AsCounsel AsArbitrator

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

No.ofRespondents

Arabic English French

11

InstitutionalArbitration

Weidentified91arbitralcentresororganisationsoperatingonthecontinent.11Ourresearchfindsthatnotall91entitiescarryoutthefunctionsofanarbitralinstitutionproperlysocalled.Some of these centres do not administer arbitration cases but provide facilities includinghearingroomstosupporttheprivatedisputeresolutionprocess;whilesomeeffectivelyactasappointing authorities and again do not administer arbitration references. Almost all theentitiesthatdescribethemselvesasarbitralcentresprovidecapacitybuildingandtraininginarbitrationandotherformsofdisputeresolutionprocesses.Thisresearchcoversonlythoseinstitutionsthatadministerarbitrationreferencesundertheirbespokearbitrationrulesand/orotherrulesincludingadhocarbitration.Suchinstitutionsalsohavephysicalpresenceinanidentifiablelocationwithinthecontinentandemploystaffthatadministersarbitrations.AfricanArbitralCentres

UsersofAfricanarbitralcentresrequirethemtohavethefollowingfacilities:

Ø convenientlocation;Ø spacioushearingroomsandbreak-outfacilities;Ø recordingandtranscriptionequipments;Ø conveniencefacilities;Ø professionalstaff;Ø clearrulesofarbitration;Ø supportinappointingarbitrators;Ø costeffectiveness;Ø arbitrationrulesindifferentlanguageswithexplanatorynotes;Ø efficientcasemanagement;Ø accesstoefficienttechnology;Ø neutralandreputable.

11Fordetailssee:https://researcharbitrationafrica.com/files/List%20of%20Known%20Arbitration%20Institutions%20in%20Africa%2020200404.pdf

12

60%(210)ofrespondentshaveparticipatedininstitutionalarbitrationinAfrica.

TheserespondentshaveusedthefollowingAfricanarbitralcentres:

NameofArbitralInstitution Abbreviation Country

CairoRegionalCentreforInternationalCommercialArbitration CRCICA Egypt

ArbitrationFoundationofSouthernAfrica AFSA SouthAfrica

CommonCourtofJustice&ArbitrationofOHADA CCJA/OHADA IvoryCoast

N'DjamenaArbitration,MediationandConciliationCentre CAMC-N ChadCAMEC-CCIB(CentreofArbitrationofMediationandConciliationoftheChamberofCommerceandIndustryofBenin CAMEC-CCIB Benin

GICAMArbitrationandMediationCentre GICAM Cameroon

KigaliInternationalArbitrationCentre(KIAC) KIAC Rwanda

InternationalCentreforArbitration&Mediation,Abuja ICAMA Nigeria

LagosChamberofCommerceInternationalArbitrationCentre LACIAC Nigeria

ArabCentreforArbitration ACA UAE

CentrePermanentd'arbitrageetdemédiationduCADEV CADEV Cameroon

ArbitrationCentreofGuinée CAG Guinea

LagosCourtofArbitration LCA Nigeria

NigerianInstituteofCharteredArbitrators NICARb Nigeria

CentreforConciliation&ArbitrationofTunis(CCAT) CCAT Tunisia

Figure6:Tableshowsarbitralcentresusedbyrespondents.

TopAfricanArbitralCentresbyCoding

OnthebasisofthenumberofarbitrationcasesadministeredandtheMoUsconcludedwithotherarbitrationcentres.

No NameofCentre

NoofcasesunderownRules[1]

NoofCasesunderotherRulesorAdHoc[0.5]

In-StateMoU[0.2]

AfricanMoUs[0.3]

OutsideAfrica[0.4]

TotalPoints

1 AFSA12 4134 - - 2[0.6] 7[2.8] 4137.42 CRCICA13 1408 - - 14[4.2] 43[17.2] 1429.43 OAMCC14 181 - - 10[3] - 1844 CCJA15 157 - - - 2[0.8] 157.85 KIAC16 137 4[2] - 1[0.3] - 139.36 TIARB17 89 - 1[0.2] - - 89.27 ICAMA18 - 165[82.5] 1[0.2] - - 82.78 NCIA19 40 8[4] - 4[1.2] 2[0.8] 469 CMAN20 7 - - - - 7

Figure7:TableshowstoptenAfricanarbitralcentres.12ArbitrationFoundationofSouthernAfrica(SouthAfrica).13CairoRegionalCentreforInternationalCommercialArbitration(Egypt).14OuagadougouArbitration,Mediation&ConciliationCentre(BurkinaFaso).15CommonCourtofJustice&Arbitration,OHADA.16KigaliInternationalArbitrationCentre(Rwanda).17TanzaniaInstituteofArbitrators,DaresSalaam(Tanzania).18InternationalCentreforArbitration&Mediation,Abuja(Nigeria).ICAMAdoesnothaveitsownbespokearbitrationrules.19NairobiCentreforInternationalArbitration(Kenya).20CentredeMediationetd’ArbitragedeNiamey(Niger).

13

OurcodingexerciserevealsthatAFSAisthepremierarbitrationcentreinAfricaasitrelatestoexperienceinadministeringarbitrationcasesunderitsarbitrationruleswithCRCICAsecondwhileICAMAisthepremierarbitrationcentreasitrelatestoadministeringadhocarbitrationcases.

Inrelationtooutwardvisionandengagement,CRCICAistheleadingarbitrationcentreinAfricawithAFSAplacingsecond.

TheresponsesfromtheonlinequestionnairesupportourfindingsonAFSAandCRCICA.Fromouronlinequestionnaire,botharbitralcentresenjoystrongreputationfrombothuserswithinandoutsidetheir locationsandtherespondentspraisetheirprofessionalism,efficiencyandsupportfacilities.TopArbitralCentresbytheRespondents

Thetopfivearbitralcentresasrankedbytherespondentstothequestionnaireare:

NameofArbitralInstitution Abbreviation Country Points

ArbitrationFoundationofSouthernAfrica AFSA SouthAfrica 93 CairoRegionalCentreforInternationalCommercialArbitration CRCICA Egypt 72

KigaliInternationalArbitrationCentre KIAC Rwanda 51

LagosCourtofArbitration LCA Nigeria 44

NairobiCentreforInternationalArbitration NCIA Kenya 32

Figure8:Tableshowstop5arbitralcentresandFigure9belowshowsdataasacolumnchart.

Figure9:Columnchartshowstopfivearbitralcentresbyaddingratingsgivenbyrespondents.Respondentswereaskedtoratecentresbetween1-5,1beingpoorand5beingexcellent.TotalpointsforeachcentrearerepresentedintheColumnchart.

93

72

5144

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Points

AFSA CRCICA KIAC LCA NCIA

14

Respondentschosethesecentresbasedontheirexperience,reputationandlocation.

PartiesalsorankedthequalityofthesupportoradministrativestaffofAfricanarbitralcentreswiththeseasthetopfive:AFSA;CRCICA;LCA;NCIA;andCCJA.

Figure10:Columnchartshowstopfiveratedbyrespondentswhowereaskedtoratethequalityofstaffsupportavailableateacharbitralcentrebetween1-5,1beingthepoorestqualityand5beingthehighestquality.

UsersofAfricanarbitralcentreswillrecommendthefollowingcentres:CRCICA,AFSA,KIAC,NCIA,CCJA.

Figure11:Piechartshowstopfivearbitralcentresrespondentswouldrecommendtodisputants.

It is obvious that none of these arbitral centres is located in Nigeria, one of the majorarbitrationhubsonthecontinent.21NigeriaalsoboastsofseveralarbitralcentresaccordingtotheupdatedlistofAfricanarbitralcentres.22OnepossibleexplanationforthisanomalyisthatthevastmajorityofarbitrationreferencesinNigeriaareadhoc.ThearbitralcentresinNigeriaadministerveryfewcases.ThisisfurthersupportedbythedatafromICAMAinAbujawhich

21Asfoundinour2018surveyreport.Availableat:https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/25741/1/SOAS%20Arbitration%20in%20Africa%20Survey%20Report%202018.pdf22 SeetheupdatedlistofAfricanarbitralcentresat:https://researcharbitrationafrica.com/papers/

5 5

4 4

5

CRCICA AFSA CCJA LCA NCIA

61

4538

32

13

26

CRCICA

AFSA

KIAC

CCJA

NCIA

15

hasadministeredatotalof165adhocarbitrationscases(seeFigure9above).Forpurposesofthis coding exercise, the difficulty with data collection for ad hoc arbitrations is that thenumbersof such references is difficult to verify. This is unlikearbitral centres, that keeparecordofthenumberofcasestheyadminister.

Thevastmajorityof respondents (307)will recommendAfricanarbitral centres tousersofarbitration.

Figure12:PiechartshowsthenumberofrespondentswhowouldrecommendAfricanarbitralcentrestousersofarbitration.Onthe(humanandtechnical)facilitiesthatrespondentsexpectaninternationalarbitrationcentreinAfricatoprovide,thefollowingwererepeatedlymentioned:

Ø Accessiblelocation;Ø Panelofexperiencedarbitrators;Ø Multilingualstaffanddeliveryofservices(includingarbitration;

rules/notes/guidelines);Ø State-of-the-arttechnology;Ø Welltrainedadministrativestaff(andsecretarialservices);Ø Efficientcasemanagementsystems;Ø Suitableandmodernarbitrationrules;Ø Codeofethicsforarbitrators;Ø Moderntechnicalfacilities(forrecording,translation,transcription,video-

conferencing,etc.)Ø KnowledgeofAfricansocio-culturalcontext;Ø Reliableandefficientinfrastructure;Ø Digitalandphysicallibrary;Ø Functioningandattractivewebsite;Ø Onlinefilingofdocuments;Ø Adequatepowersupply;Ø Competitivecoststructure;Ø Independencefromcontrolbygovernment,commercialorotherorganisationsor

groups.Ø Securityoflives,propertyanddocuments.

No 12%

Yes88%

16

Figure13:Wordcloudshowingkeywordsfromrespondents’feedback.

17

ThislistincludesexpectationsofrespondentsofthequalityofservicesarbitralcentresinAfricashoulddeliverincomparisontotheirforeigncounterparts.Theitemsonthelistareminimumrequirements for which respondents that identified the top arbitral centres in Africa alsomentionedasbeingofhighqualityinthosecentres.ThelistisveryhelpfulforAfricanarbitralcentrestoadoptinassessingtheirserviceprovisiontotheirusers.

Finally, the list is evidence that the average arbitration practitioner in Africa is verymuchtechnologicallymindedandhasaclearunderstandingoftheroletechnologycanplaytowardseffectivedisputeresolutiondelivery.23SomeoftheresponsesclearlymentionthattheservicesprovidedbythearbitralcentresinAfricaarecomparabletothoseprovidedbytheirforeigncounterpartsinallrespects.ThisisirrespectiveofthefactthatinsomeAfricancountriesthecost of delivering some of these services are very high when compared with the cost ofdeliveringthesameserviceinpost-modernsocietiesoutsideAfrica.

AdhocArbitration

Ad hoc arbitration, as used in this report, refers to any arbitration reference that is notconductedunderthebespokearbitrationrulesofanarbitralinstitution.Suchreferencesmaybeconductedinthefacilitiesofanarbitralcentreandasalreadymentioned,suchcentremayprovidedifferentlevelsofsupporttotheparties.48%oftherespondentshaveparticipatedinadhocarbitrationreferencesinAfrica.

Figure14:PiechartshowsthenumberofrespondentswhoparticipatedinadhocarbitrationinAfrica.

23 ThismakestheAfricaArbitrationAcademyProtocolonVirtualHearingsinAfrica2020verywelcome.ThetextoftheProtocolisavailableat:https://researcharbitrationafrica.com/the-african-promise/

Yes168(40%)

No

182 (60%)

Cities Numberofrespondents

Johannesburg 38

Lagos 30

Cairo 25

CapeTown 20

Durban 12

Abuja 11

Pretoria 10

Nairobi 9

Cotonou 6

Gaborone 6

Douala 5

Sandton 5

Yaoundé 5

Enugu 4

N'Djamena 4

Paris 4

Abakaliki 3

Accra 3

Khartoum 3

Kigali 3

Lusaka 3

PortElizabeth 3

Tunis 3

Windhoek 3

DaresSalaam 2

Dubai 2

Grahamstown 2

Maputo 2

Cities Numberofrespondents

Maseru 2

Polokwane 2

Abidjan 1

Alexandria 1

Asaba 1

Bamako 1

Bloemfontein 1

EastLondon 1

Emalahleni 1

Gauteng 1

Harare 1

Ife-Ife 1

Juba 1

Kaduna 1

Kampala 1

Kinshasa 1

KualaLumpur 1

Libreville 1

Mbombela 1

Middelburg 1

MosselBay 1

PortHarcourt 1

Rabat 1

RichardsBay 1

Sanaa 1

Secunda 1

Tripoli 1

Warri 1

Figure15:Tableshowsthecitiestherespondentshaveheldtheadhocarbitration.

19

SeatofArbitration

This section of the survey seeks to identify themajor cities in Africa that host arbitrationreferences,whetheradhocorinstitutionalarbitration.MajorCitiesforArbitrationRespondents have participated in ad hoc arbitration in various capacities as: arbitrator,counsel, tribunal secretary, expert anddisputant in severalAfrican cities from37differentAfricancountries:

City Country

Johannesburg SouthAfricaCapeTown SouthAfricaDurban SouthAfricaPretoria SouthAfricaSandton SouthAfricaCairo EgyptLagos NigeriaAbuja NigeriaEnugu NigeriaAbidjan Coted’IvoireN’Djamena ChadCotonou BeninDouala CameroonYaoundé CameroonNairobi KenyaKigali RwandaDaresSalaam TanzaniaTunis TunisiaAccra GhanaGaborone BotswanaAddisAbaba EthiopiaCasablanca MoroccoMarrakech MoroccoRabat MoroccoKhartoum SudanLusaka ZambiaOuagadougou BurkinaFasoWindhoek NamibiaHarare ZimbabweKampala UgandaKinshasa DemocraticRepublicofCongoMaputo MozambiqueMaseru LesothoLome TogoMbabane EswatiniTripoli Libya

Figure16:TablelistingmajorAfricancitiesforArbitration.

20

TopAfricanCitiesforArbitrationThetopfivecitiesforarbitrationinAfricaare:Johannesburg(38);Lagos(30);Cairo(25);CapeTown(20);andDurban(12)responses.Grouped according to countries: South Africa [with Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban,Pretoria, Sandton and Guateng commanding 86 responses); Nigeria (Lagos, Abuja, Enugu,Abakaliki,Asaba,Ile-Ife,Kaduna,PortHarcourtandWarriwith53responses);Egypt(Cairowith25responses).Thetop10Africancitiesforarbitrationaccordingtorespondentsare:

Cities NumberofvotesCairo 112Johannesburg 82Kigali 64Lagos 59CapeTown 45Abidjan 29Abuja 25Pretoria 22Durban 16Tunis 16

Figure17:Tableshowsthetop10citiesforarbitration.Top20are:

Cities Numberofvotes

Cairo 112Johannesburg 82Kigali 64Lagos 59CapeTown 45Abidjan 29Abuja 25Pretoria 22Durban 16Tunis 16PortLouis 14Douala 12Dakar 12Nairobi 11Cotonou 10AddisAbaba 10Casablanca 10Ougadougou 9Accra 9Sandton 8

Figure18:Tableshowsthetop20citiesforarbitration.

21

Reasonsforthesechoicesaccordingtorespondents:

Ø Availabilityofexpertiseinarbitration;Ø Accessibility[transportation];Ø Accesstomoderntechnologyandfacilities;Ø Arbitrationfriendlylawsandjurisdictions;Ø EconomichubsinAfrica;Ø Reputationofthearbitralcentreinthecity;Ø Multilingualcities;Ø Geographicallocationofthecities;Ø PoliticallystableØ Security

InparticipatinginarbitrationinAfrica,respondentsfoundthefollowingmostrewarding:

Ø Disposalofthedisputeexpeditiously;Ø Acceptanceofthearbitralawardbytheparties;Ø ConductingICCarbitrationinAfricaaswellasifithadbeenconductedinParisand

savingthepartiestravelcosts;Ø Efficientconductofthearbitralproceedings;Ø Localisationofthearbitration;Ø Devoidofunnecessaryformalityandtechnicality;Ø Easeofcommunication(bothlogisticalandlinguistically);Ø Efficiencyandexpediency;Ø Useofmoderntechnology;Ø Proceduralflexibility;Ø Confidentialityoftheprocess.

Respondentsfoundthefollowingmosttroubling:

Ø Attemptstodelaytheproceedingsbyrespondentcounsel;Ø Appointmentofarbitratorsthatareunfamiliarwiththesubstantivesubjectmatterof

thedispute;Ø Costsofthearbitration;Ø Dealingwithdilatorypartiesandlawyerswhoimportlitigationrulesintoarbitration;Ø Enforcementoftheaward;Ø Uncleartextoflocallawsonarbitration;Ø Lengthofproceedings;Ø Toofrequentrecoursetothecourtsduringthearbitrationproceedings;Ø Repeatedappointmentsofsomearbitrators.

22

EgyptCairo

CoteD’IvoireAbidjan

MoroccoCasablancaMarrakechRabat

UgandaKampala

SouthAfricaJohannesburgCapeTownDurbanPretoriaSandton

CameroonDoualaYaoundé

GhanaAccra

BeninCotonou

ZambiaLusaka

ChadN’Djamena

KenyaNairobi

NigeriaLagosAbujaEnugu

RwandaKigali

TanzaniaDaresSalaam

EthiopiaAddisAbaba

TunisiaTunis

LibyaTripoli

BurkinaFasoOuagadougou

BotswanaGaborone

SudanKhartoum

ZimbabweHarare

DemocraticRepublicofCongoKinshasa

NamibiaWindhoek Mozambique

Maputo

TogoLome

LesothoMaseru

EswatiniMaputo

Figure19:MapshowingmajorcitiesforArbitrationinAfrica