Before the advent of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) the only known process of administration of Justice was litigation. Among Commonwealth Nations and Common law Countries litigation has had a semi Monopoly of resolution of disputes. Being the only process available for dispensation of justice, but the outcome  was not always satisfactory to all. Consequently, in 1906 the Roscoe Pound Conference had to examine the dissatisfaction with the legal process as a means by which justice is administered and came up with the need for Alternative Disputes Resolution Process.

Subsequently, various processes of resolving disputes developed over the years as alternative to litigation. The development of these processes arose for various reasons some of which had to do with the nature of the dispute or the failure of the legal process to effectively deal with the nature of the dispute or type of disputes.

For instance matrimonial causes, family issues industrial/labour relations, to mention a few.

Over time, different types of disputes also emerged for which litigation was not found to be adequate/suitable process. For instance, disputes arising from business relationship, etc.

In the course of the development of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes, the focus then was more on having an alternative process which is simplified as opposed to the legal process. Put differently, the search was for a process that could address the problems, difficulties and challenges associated with the legal process and procedure under the legal/justice system.

As stated in the preceding paragraph, the main focus was directed at the process and not necessarily the outcome thereof. That is to say, the outcome of the various processes in dealing with particular types of disputes was not taken into account as to whether the process outcome will attain the ends of Justice or whether the process outcome satisfies the yearnings/needs of the parties involved in a given dispute.

 The process outcome of any dispute resolution process is uppermost in the mind of disputing parties. Therefore, by extension the Professionals engaged by the disputing parties should also have uppermost in their mind the process outcome.

• In the circumstance, the question that should be posed here is: Does a particular process to be utilized serve the ends of Justice?

It is in attempting to answer this question that Dispute Resolution Practice is proposed with the aim of addressing the issue of process outcome viz-a-viz the ends of justice for the disputants.

Disputes Resolution Practice is expected to address the challenges encountered in litigating, utilizing Alternative Dispute Resolution processes, issue of process outcome and the ends of justice for disputing parties in a given case.