Assessing the Need for Arbitrator’s Immunity in Ethiopia; Insight from Selected Jurisdiction

Abstract

world. In every arbitral proceeding some chief actors who play an important role for the achievement of the expected outcome are arbitrators, arbitral institutions, disputing parties and courts. Particularly, arbitrators who provides service in Ad-hoc tribunals and institutions engages in the proceeding more. While undertaking their function they are expected to fulfill their duties and responsibilities without any defect and in good faith. failure to deliver the award in good faith and commit fault against their expected legal duty, which forces parties to bring civil claim with the aim of getting redress for the damage sustained due to arbitrator. The paper examines and assesses need to introduce immunity of arbitrators in Ethiopia from other nation’s best experiences. The legal jurisprudence is evolving from time to time there is no consensus over the scope of protection (immunity) of arbitrators in a different jurisdiction. Our country Ethiopia recently promulgated arbitration and conciliation working proclamation, but there are no provisions in the proclamation on issue of arbitral immunity. The unavailability of such jurisprudence has its own direct effect on the integrity of the proceeding, finality and quality of the award. Consequently, discourages arbitrators and parties to arbitration from using arbitration as an efficient and effective mode of dispute settlement. The paper employed doctrinal research method and also discussed and qualitatively analyzed the experience of selected jurisdictions (France, England, China and India) which are selected based on historical legal infrastructural attachment, current economic relations and their achievement in building robust arbitration system. Also, the opinion of arbitrators and experts and case laws are discussed to draw lessons for Ethiopia. It has been observed that, almost in all jurisdictions arbitrators enjoy protection from liability as long as they act in good faith or in accordance with the law. The paper suggests adopting immunity in the lack of clear governing law or ruling in Ethiopia. Accordingly, the paper recommend qualified immunity because; in such kind of immunity arbitrators enjoy immunity and protected from civil actions, as long as they fulfill their obligation in good faith and without any kind of fraud and deliberate wrongdoing. If arbitrators commit wrong by breach their duties they are going to be liable by general rules of contract law.