The Uniform Act of OHADA on arbitration law is ten years old. It is therefore an opportune moment to consider the implications which this Act has had on arbitration practice, and the manner in which arbitral and judicial practice have caused arbitration law to evolve.
The Uniform Act has without any doubt improved the normative framework of arbitration in a great majority of the OHADA member states which did not previously have modern legislation on arbitration. This did not however generate significant development of arbitral practice. The OHADA law of arbitration has been interpreted by state courts principally in the context of applications for annulment of awards. In this respect, it is regrettable that such applications, before certain national courts, should be perceived as a means of examining the underlying merits of the award. The Cour commune de justice et d'arbitrage (the joint justice and arbitration court), for its part, has demonstrated a rigorous approach to the interpretation of the grounds of annulment when it has had the opportunity to interpret these, in final appeals against court decisions relating to applications for annulment. In the context of the process for the amendment of the Uniform Acts, proposals have been made to amend the Act relating to arbitration. These are however small in number and of little significance.
Revue de l’arbitrage