Rethinking the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Settlement of Maritime Cargo Claims in Tanzania

Abstract

Cargo claims for loss, damage and delay are among the most common disputes arising from maritime transportation, and Tanzania's ports serve both its own trade and that of its landlocked neighbours. Although Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is internationally accepted as an efficient means of resolving such claims, yet its use for cargo claims in Tanzania remains limited. This article identifies and examines the challenges affecting the effectiveness of ADR mechanisms in resolving cargo claims, and explains how they arise from the structure of the legal and institutional framework. The article finds that access to ADR depends on the arbitration clause in the bill of lading, not on any statutory entitlement; that arbitration is disproportionately costly and slow for modest claims and has no simplified track; that Tanzania has no maritime arbitral institution or roster of maritime arbitrators; that no instrument coordinates the complaints procedure of the Tanzania Shipping Agencies Corporation, arbitration and the courts; and that insurance practice and documentary and language burdens add to the difficulty. These challenges are found to reinforce one another. The article concludes that the challenges are largely capable of institutional and regulatory solution, without wholesale reform of the Arbitration Act. The article recommends an expedited arbitration track, a maritime roster, clarification by regulation of the relationship between the complaint’s procedure and arbitration, and judicial guidance on sequencing, with the domestication of the Hamburg Rules as a complementary measure.