A Comparative Analysis of the Ethiopian Legal Framework for Challenging Arbitral Awards through Appeal

Abstract

The grounds on which an award may be challenged under modern international arbitration laws are narrowly drawn and, in particular,do not allow a review of the merits. Nevertheless, in countries having traditions of court intervention in arbitration, the laws may – in addition to the usual action to set aside – allow parties to appeal the award before the courts. Comparably, the Ethiopian arbitration law facilitates both the avenues of appeal and setting aside. However, the legal framework for challenging arbitral awards through appeal is criticized for allowing excessive intervention of courts over arbitration, mainly, over the making of the award. This aspect of judicial intervention represents the most contestable interference in the arbitral procedure. Where parties are able to challenge, appeal or overturn the outcome of arbitration, the finality and currency of an award will be compromised. Hence, this work is to provide a possible approach to rectify the legal problems associated with the challenge of arbitral awards. Accordingly, after addressing the general overview of commercial arbitration, this article, with a view to drawing the best international experiences, provides an intensive comparative analysis of the Ethiopian legal framework for challenging arbitral awards with UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law and England Arbitration Act.