Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) is rooted in Africa. However, this is not reflected in scholarship and practice. The last few decades have witnessed the supposed introduction of ADR in Africa, masquerading as an innovation imported from the USA and aiming to extend access to justice. This is a pure revisionism. While African communities rely on ADR to solve disputes, ADR epistemology has not developed in its scientific form. Hence, there is a dearth of literature on what emic unadulterated justice would look like in Africa. This article seeks to provide a framework for how to think about ADR in Africa by presenting five normative conceptions that are latent in African ADR: dispute avoidance; reconciliation; all-inclusive justice; consensus building; and matching disputes to the best process.

In this article, I carry out an in-depth conceptualization of right-to-development governance to illustrate how, as a rights-based model suited to redressing the challenges that have held Africa back over the decades, it can leverage and accelerate the processes for development on the continent. I do so to provide clarity on the deficits in the understanding of the right to development and the dilemma of its implementation in Africa. Through a theoretical and qualitative socio-legal analysis, I frame the argument that Africa's development setbacks are largely generated and sustained by the lack of an operational model that can drive transformation on the continent. Besides having evolved as a claimable human right, the right to development is equally conceived as a model or paradigm for development which is yet to be fully explored to inform development thinking and practice on the continent, and thus enable shared prosperity and improved quality of life and standards of living for the peoples of Africa. The proposed right-to-development governance model is appropriately theorized in this article to provide the basis for its operationalization, which, as explained, entails a nuanced blend of nominal capitalism, communitarian socialism and contemporary culturalism.

This article delves into the doctrine of inherent powers within the Sudanese Civil Procedure Code, with a specific focus on its origin, nature and scope. It posits that this doctrine empowers the courts to undertake actions essential for fulfilling their duties and ensuring the pursuit of justice, even in instances where such powers are not explicitly granted to them under statutory provisions. Additionally, the article examines the potential advantages and disadvantages associated with inherent powers and contemplates whether their exercise might pose a threat to the rule of law. It also explores the arguments both in favour of and against the possibility of rule-making within the framework of these powers and the potential impact of such regulations on the administration of justice. The article asserts that while a court's inherent powers are indispensable for the efficient dispensation of justice, it is imperative that they are not wielded capriciously or arbitrarily. Instead, their exercise should be guided by the principles of equity and good conscience.

This article examines the alignment of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with domestic development policies. The analysis reveals the presence of considerable disparity between Ethiopian BITs and the country's domestic development policies and the importance of ensuring consistency between the two. The potential options to resolve this disparity can be combined on a case-by-case basis, depending on different challenges, such as bargaining power, political commitment, procedural requirements and resistance from other treaty partners. The changing dynamics of global politics and the growing backlash against BITs have created a conducive environment for such reform.

The conceptualization of a proper approach to patent law, as it relates to drug patents and access to medicines, remains contested. This article joins the discourse by positing that an application of the communitarian approach of ubuntu to the might of human rights is a useful framing for normalizing equity-based interventions and would help tilt the balance of power from a narrow profit-seeking imperative to one that prioritizes the public good. It contends that, while private entity ubuntu, corporate social responsibility or charity yield some positive results, they are inadequate and must be buttressed by the right to health, which entails access to the necessary diagnostics, therapeutics and medicine for all. The article argues against the predominant hegemony of current thought, which has so far not yielded meaningful and timely access, and advocates for a rethink of the possibilities of more just outcomes through more just processes.