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.