When an arbitral convention has been agreed upon, an ordinary tribunal is ipso facto precluded from entertaining the dispute between the parties. This view may stand if arbitration is seen simply as a dispute settlement mechanism administered by private individuals without any State authority. Nonetheless, this is a merely a principle. In fact, the OHADA's Uniform Act relating to Arbitration procedure envisions both implied and express prerogatives of a State's judge with regard to arbitration procedure. In connection to ad hoc arbitration procedure, the State`s judge prerogative are manifold and could be classified into two main categories. On the one hand, he enjoys shared competences with the arbitral tribunal. These competencies are either conditioned upon the default of the arbiters or on the failure of the parties to put the process into motion, or otherwise on the undue constitution of the arbitral tribunal. This is usually the case where adequate cooperation/collaboration is required between both institutions for the administration of arbitral justice. On the other hand, the State's judge may enjoy exclusive competences. This is the case in post-arbitration situations where the recognition or the exequatur of the arbitral decision is sought, or when a civil tribunal is called upon to entertain recourse for cancellation.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
