ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION THROUGH EFFECTIVE MOOTING SKILLS : EXPERTISE, ADR TRAINING

AND COMPETITION.
VIRTUAL LECTURER/TRAINING DELIVERED ON 12 APRIL 2025 TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SOCIETY OF ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY AND ALEX EKWUEME FEDERAL UNIVERSITY NDUFU-ALIKE, EBONYI STATE IN PREPARATION FOR ADR MOOTING
COMPETITION.

- C. S. NNADI, CGArB, Pf.d(ICPAN), Dr- FIGCPM, Chartered Global Arbitrator, Principal Legal Officer, Enugu State Ministry of Justice,
Doctoral Fellow, Institute of global Peace and Conflicts Management, Doctoral Fellow, Institute of Corporate and Public
Administrators of Nigeria.

This lecture at its best ought to be impacted in form of analytical-practicum legal training session for
pragmatic assimilation. It is better practically intern than description and theories in that this is more of
a technical course than theoretical presentation. However, there will be a great room for participatory
discussion to share experiences, ideas, techniques, methodology and individual prowess together for
collective learning skills.

BRIEF HISTORY OF MOOTING AND MOOTING COMPETITION IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION:

ORIGIN OF MOOTING : “The word “moot” originates from |Scandinavian word meaning simply a
meeting. The meeting concerned were assemblies of the members of a community for legislative or
judicial purposes. The word was given its present meaning in the English Inns of Court in the sixteenth
century where law students would present their legal arguments on a given set of factual circumstances
often resembling real cases) before one or several senior lawyers or judges. Aspiring lawyers were
thereby given experience in the art of persuasion, without having to gain such experience at the risk of
inadvertently damaging a real client’s interests. Various regional, national a d even international
mooting competitions have developed through the years such as the renowned Philip C. Jessup
International law moot court competition, established in 1959. The European Law Moot Court is
developing rapidly into an organization of similar scale and reputation1.”

ENGLISH LAW PERSPECTIVES: Louise Parson ,Assistant Professor and Director of Mooting at Bond
University, Australia wrote in 2018 in ‘Competitive Mooting: An Opportunity to Build Resilience Skills for
Legal Practice’ that “In the 14th century in England2, the original form of legal education to train
barristers was through mooting. Aspiring barristers mooted after dinner in front of senior barristers.”3

1
European Law Moot Court, https://europeanlawmootcourt.eu
2
Louise Parson ,Assistant Professor and Director of Mooting at Bond University, Australia Competitive Mooting: An
Opportunity to Build Resilience Skills for Legal Practice, December 2018. Australian Journal of Clinical Education
4(1), DOI:10.53300/001c.6784, liscense.CC BY-NYND 4.0 (licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License), ResearchGate, www.reaserachgate.net
3
(et al Louise Parson 2018) A Lynch, Why so we moot? Exploring the role of mooting in legal education. Legal
Education Review, 1996, 7(6). In the late 1800’s mooting was revived as a training tool. See Anthony E Cassmatis &
Peter Billings. Thomas Rueters guide to mooting (Lawbook Co.2016). S ee also Louise Parsons, “Competitive
mooting as clinical legal education: can real benefits be derived from unreal experience?” (2017) 1Australian
Journal for Clinical Education.

1
The Federal Bar Association4 stated that the “roots of moot court can be traced back to medieval
England, where law students engage in moots, simulated legal exercises designed to sharpen their skills
in legal reasoning and making legal arguments. Over the centuries, this tradition evolved, finding its
place in legal education institutions worldwide. In the USA,. Harvard is often cited as an originator of the
tradition, dating back to 1820, and now the activity is found at almost every American law school.” 5

EUROPEAN LAW PERSPECTIVES: “After the first quarter of Century of existence, given the rapid growth
of the European Law Moot Court (ELMC) phenomenon and the increasing degree of recognition and
prestige that it enjoys in the European Union Institutions and in the academic and legal professional
words a brief explanation of its origin and growth seems appropriate. Following the pattern of the ELMC
motto “moot, meet and compete” here is a tour through the short history6.

Although moots on point of European Community law had been organized on ad hoc basis, between
1983 and 1985 by the Court of Justice itself, it was not until 1988, when a group of Munich University
law students met in the appropriately bucolic setting of a beer-garden that foundations for the now well-
established European Law Moot Court were laid. Their motivation was to raise awareness of the subject
of European Community law and to promote contact between law students throughout Europe. With the
active encouragement of Lord Mackenzie Stuart and his successor as President of Court of Justice, Ole \
due, work was begun on preparing the first edition of the Moot Court. The rules, which still form the
basis of the structure of today’s competition, were drawn up and a slippery legal problem was drafted.
Thanks to the good office of Mr. Emile Noel, then principal of the European University Institute in
Florence, the delightful |Villa Schifanio was made available as the venue for the first Moot Court in the
hot summer of 1988. After a dramatic final, a distinguished panel presided over by Jose Luis da Cruz
Vilaca, then President of the Court of First Instance, selected the Free University of Brussels as the
winner among the eleven participating teams.

Though the enthusiasm of those who had taken part the success of the first competition quickly became
known throughout Europe and the Moot Court expanded. Not only did the organization include now
students from Utrcht, the competition also moved to a system based upon Regional rounds and a Final
at the Court of Justice. On the invitation of President Ole Due, the Final was held in 1991 for the first time
in Luxembourg before a panel drawn from the members of the Court of Justice and the Court of First
Instance. By 1997 the competition had expanded to such a scale that, with 63 teams participating in the
written round, for the first time four rounds were held.

In 1908 the Society organized the first special edition Moot Court for the EXPO 98 world exhibition in
Lisbon, bringing the Competition to a new level of complexity and organizational perfection.

It should be noted thattoday teams that compete come not only from Member States of the European
Union but also from Central and East European countries, the U.S.A, Canada, and even Australia,
Regional finals have been held in various cities such as Thessalonika, Exeter, Vienna, Bruases,
Maastricht, Stockholm, Toulouse, Lisbon, Parma, Copenheagen, Budapest, Warsaw, Durham, Tallinin,

4
The Value of Moot Court Competitions Explained, by fedbarblog, March 20, 2014 in General Interest,
https://www.fedbar.org

5
(Supra) The Value of Moot Court Competitions Explained, by fedbarblog, March 20, 2014 in General Interest,
https://www.fedbar.org
6
European Law Moot Court, https://europeanlawmootcourt.eu

2
Tartu, Prague, Edimbirgh, Toulouise, Uppsala, Florence, S. Francisco (USA), Basel, Colegne, Maastricht,
Zagreb, Pecs, Istanbul, Kiev, Hesinki, Paris, Madrid, Bratislava, Vilnius, Riga etc7.”

DEFINITIONS:

ADR: Alternative dispute resolution is a situation where disputes are resolved outside courtroom either
through mediation, arbitration or negotiation.

Aims of ADR is provision of a method of dispute resolution alternative to court proceedings. ADR is
flexible, faster, confidential, time efficient, less costly means of settling dispute more than the expensive
and long adjourning normal court room proceedings.

MOOTING8: this is mock court trial whereby students imitates court trials, hears mock cases, analyze
legal issues, legal research, applied relevant laws and rules court, draft legal processes, argue and make
legal submissions, present oral argument and frontloading processes for determination by the mock
court. Moot legal issues are usually legal issues set in areas of laws, contemporary or hypothetical
question of law to be argued by student and resolved in mooting competition which mostly involves two
opposing sides.

Louise Parson9, an Assistant Professor and Director of Mooting at Bond University, Australia defined
mooting and competitive mooting as follows:

“ A moot is a mock dispute resolution procedure used to teach law. A fictional legal dispute is used as
the basis for students to study the applicable legal principles as well as dispute resolution practices
(litigation and alternative dispute resolution). As a pedagogical tool, mooting dates back to the medavial
period of 14th century England10,

ADR-MOOTING :Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) through effective mooting consist in practical
skills developed for purposes of resolving conflicts out-of-courtroom proceedings. Interlaced with
negation, mediation and arbitration. This is usually done by students interested in alternative dispute
resolution through mooting exercise of mock trial laced interdependently with skills of arbitration,
mediation and negotiation during the mock trial. The basic focus of dispute resolution by mock trials is
7
(Surpa) European Law Moot Court, https://europeanlawmootcourt.eu

8
University of Oxford, www.law.ox.ac.uk Mooting : What Is It and Why Take Part – Faculty of Law.
9
Louise Parson ,Assistant Professor and Director of Mooting at Bond University, Australia Competitive Mooting: An
Opportunity to Build Resilience Skills for Legal Practice, December 2018. Australian Journal of Clinical Education
4(1), DOI:10.53300/001c.6784, liscense.CC BY-NYND 4.0 (licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License), ResearchGate, www.reaserachgate.net .
10
(Et el Louise Parson 2018) “In the 14th Century in England, the original form of legal education to train…..read it in
the main body of this article. It relevant.

3
to impact deep and extensive knowledge of understanding legal principles, practicing advocacy in
interdependent scenario of mooting laced with combined distinct environment of arbitration,
mediation, negotiation in mock trial to students.

The primary business of alternative dispute resolution through mooting is help students develop built
skills relevant and requisite in analytical legal research, persuasive argument, convincing presentation
meant for understanding the processes of arbitration, negotiation and mediation practice of ADR.

THE THREE COMPASS OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION : MEDIATION, ARBTRATION AND

Alternative dispute resolution has three compass whereby it locates dispute, assess, analyses, quantifies
and qualifies the dispute before understanding the nature, method of resolving same and the lasting
substantial justice sustainable by the particular angle of the compass. The compass are mediation,
arbitration and negotiation. Each has elaborate relevant peculiar skills students need to attain in
subsequent training.

Mediation is a situation whereby students act as mediators to assist the parties resolve their dispute in a
mooting exercise. The student mediator will act as a neutral third party to facilitate communication
between the parties to resolve the dispute.

Arbitration is a situation whereby students act as arbitrators to hear evidence and make decisions
through mooting. The student arbitrator will act as a neutral third party to hear evidence from both
sides of the parties in the dispute and thus after makes a binding decision.

Negotiation is a situation whereby students learn effective communication skills relevant in securing
agreeable resolution on mutual basis usually not a win-win approach dependent on the facts,
circumstances and the scenario. The parties themselves are involved here to negotiate a settlement
directly with the help of a student-third-party.

OBJECTIVES OF MOOTING INTER-LACED WITH ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION : WHY DO

The students crave for this type of mock trial methodology and method of analytical-practicum legal
research for its economies, importance11 and objectives12 of mooting competition

Students moot to engage in critical “thinking about interesting topical legal issues; to enhance their
advocacy, legal research and writing skills; work and learn with peers; to demonstrate interest in
advocacy, competence as future advocates; to find mooting intellectually rewarding and enjoyable –
fun13.”

This grows students deeply and extensively in practical skills relevant in legal knowledge equipped with
enhanced self confidence for future legal practice upon graduation and admission in the legal
profession.

11
The Open University Law School, http://law-school.open.ac.uk To Moot Or Not To Moot…Is Mooting Important?
12
Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) +966-920003625, GCC-Arabic Moot, http://sadr.org

13
University of Oxford, www.law.ox.ac.uk Mooting : What Is It and Why Take Part – Faculty of Law.

4
Louise Parson14, an Assistant Professor and Director of Mooting at Bond University, Australia has
maintained that competitive mooting is highly suitable for teaching law students to be prepared for
legal practice. Though not always so easy, it is suitable for forming law students in experiential mooting
skills, resilience, positive legal education-practicum psychology, spontaneity relevant to propose and
address legal issues as arose during mooting trials.

Students are required to familiarize themselves with both local and international arbitration rules and
procedures. Mooting is mock-practice and practical application of studies, rules, procedures, laws in
mock scenario. It trains students on oratory skills relevant for public speech presentation, written and
oral argument skills needed by arbitrator and lawyers to present and defend their position in arbitration
cases. It helps students to assimilate rules and procedures needed to understand Alternative Dispute
Resolution and practice same. It encourages spirit of fair competition and specialization in ADR

ADR MOOTING PRACTICUM SCENARIO; BEING IN THE MOOD OF A MOOT COURT LACED WITH
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE CONFLICTS RESOLUTION – A COMBINATION OF “MEDIATION –ARBITRATION”

In this ADR mooting competitioni involving alternative dispute resolution, there will be a combination of
“mediation and arbitration” providing students to act as both mediator and arbitrator. There will be two
opposite teams. There will be a judge. The student mediators and student arbitrators will come from a
selection from both team. These students in the separate teams will both play the role of clients and
attorney during the mediation stage amidst mooting.

NOW IN THE ACTUAL ADR MOOT COURT: PROCEEDINGS.

The Court room is set with all the registrars taken their proper position and issued a cause list. The
litigants/Clients are sited at the gallery. The Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators for both parties are sited
dressed properly in wig and gown perusing the cause list in turn. All the technology gadgets are set in
place. The judge enters. All stood and both bows. The judge sits followed by the
Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators and litigants/clients. The judge then directs the first case be called and
the registrar does call up the case and the parties. The judge takes record of presence of the parties. The
Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators for parties announce appearances interchangeably as the case may be
and in the circumstances of the status of the court in the mooting proceedings as in this instant scenario
– ADR Moot Court Arena. The Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators representing the plaintiff/litigant/client
informs the court that the matter is for the day. The Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators representing the
defendants agree or object and make a submission accordingly. In the case there is an objection as the
case may be, the court may look at its own record and read out the true position of the matter for the
day and all align to what is on the record of the court. But in this instant case, it is a fresh case which is
for mention.

The primary step in a fresh case is to address the court on the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the
matter before it. Jurisdiction is a threshold within which the court’s power to hear a matter emanated
without which no matter how beautiful a court does a matter without jurisdiction, it amounts to a nullity
abi nitio.

14
Louise Parson ,Assistant Professor and Director of Mooting at Bond University, Australia Competitive Mooting:
An Opportunity to Build Resilience Skills for Legal Practice, December 2018. Australian Journal of Clinical Education
4(1), DOI:10.53300/001c.6784, liscense.CC BY-NYND 4.0 (licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License), ResearchGate, www.reaserachgate.net ,

5
 The defence Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators stands, raises objection on grounds of incompetence of
the suit providing all the relevant substantive laws, rules of court, rules of international and local
arbitration rules, arbitration/mediation clauses in the commercial agreement or contract that provides
that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit before it. When considering preliminary
objection to jurisdiction of court, think of the relevant parties to the suit whether they are proper
parties; the subject matter of the litigation whether it is justiciable; the substantive and procedural laws
whether there is compliance; proper service of court processes on relevant parties and all the
preliminary basic elements that can enable a law suit sustain in the law court for proper determination
and effect of substantial justice.

However the Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators also must have in limine considered all the same relevant
laws and rules to sustain action in court before initiating a lawsuit against any party otherwise a misfit in
law may earn the plaintiff a cost where he may end up some fortune to the defendants for bringing a
frivolous and vexatious action against the defendant. Of course, cost follows events and he who misfits
in law or derail from its legal responsibilities that will pay cost in favour of the other party for making
the party to come to court for what the other party has intentionally refused and or neglected to carry
out its legal duty for the business of the day in court. Costs are usually paid to
Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators and not in favour of the litigants except otherwise, in the wisdom of
the court, the court directs otherwise.

ADR Moot Court is a High Court which a superior court of record. Therefore every application to the
court has to be in writing. Check the Moot High Court Rules if any ( where there is none, use a real High
Court Rules of the jurisdiction of the competition for purposes of learning proper academic legal practice
referencing skills).

In other words, originating process like writ of summons, Originating Summons, Petition for Disolutions
of Marriages, Notice of Undefended List, Notice of Preliminary Objection, Counter Affidavits To
Preliminary Objection, Reply on Point of Law, Motions On Notice, Motion Ex-Parte etc are all processes
of court which serve different purposes and must all be brought to court in writing. This is because it is a
court of record and that is the proper steps to approach a superior court.

That not withstanding, after the defence Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators has addressed the court on its
preliminary objection, the court will still call the Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators for the plaintiff to
reply to the preliminary objection of the learned Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators for defence after
which, there could or not a reply on point of law by the learned defence
Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitrators.

The court will rule on the submissions of both the learned the Attorneys/Mediators/Arbitratorsfor the
defence and the plaintiff. Where the court rules in favour of the plaintiff, the court will countinue to
hear the matter in that the court believes it has jurisdiction. Where the court rules in favour of the
defendant, the court will dismiss the case on ground of incompetence and want /lack of jurisdiction to
entertain the suit with or without a cost in favour of the defendant against the plaintiff.

The mediator will apply to the moot court that the matter be settled through mediation or through
arbitration as the clause of the hypothetical commercial case agreement may be.

6
Mediation rule may allow mediation to be conducted separately or combined with arbitration. The Moot
rule allow mediation to proceed upon application for mediation by the Arbitration tribunal.

The next option for the plaintiff is to file a proper suit or the case ends at that stage.

NOW IN THE ACTUAL MOOT COURT WITHOUT A COMBINATION OF ADR: AN OVERSIGHT

In ordinary moot court where there is no combination of ADR, the Faculty of Law of University of Oxford
Mooting procedure15 demonstrates as follows:

“The procedure imitates that followed in real court: the judge enters, the mooters and the judge bow to
each other, the clerk announces the matter, the mooters give their appearances and are then called on
in turn to present their submissions, the judge asks questions of the mooters, the court adjourns, and the
judge then returns to deliver a brief judgment and some feed back.”

MOOTING METHODOLOGY, TECHNIQUES/METHODY TO SUCCESSFUL MOOTING PSYCHOLOGY : BASIC

The bench and the Bar are co-worshipers in the temple of justice working in synergy to deliver
substantial justice. The Bar business is a serious business. The moot student solicitor takes confidential
brief from clients, advising the client accordingly and following the advice up within the legal framework
of the jurisdiction in question. Some clients case may lead to court. This brings the student moot
advocate in contact with the moot bench. The bench is a college of licensed arbiter, impeccable in
character and neutral judges that hears cases without fear or favour. The business of the bench is
substantial justice delivery even heavens falls and no matter whose goose is guard, justice must be
done.

Remember the focus is learning ADR mooting competition skills. The tips is adapted t to the moot trial
since mooting adapts the real court psychology for learning and practicum purposes. The student moot
advocates have be prepared critically to conduct their case before the court. The student moot
advocates have be prepared critically to conduct their case before the court. The student moot
participants are required to articulate properly.

The Faculty of Law, University of Oxford has articulated the following basic tips for students on how best
to engage with the bench16 below.

15
University of Oxford, www.law.ox.ac.uk Mooting : What Is It and Why Take Part – Faculty of Law.
16
(supra) University of Oxford, www.law.ox.ac.uk Mooting : What Is It and Why Take Part – Faculty of Law.

7
“It is critical to engage with the bench. This requires you to bring many skills together including
maintaining eye contact with the judge, speaking at an appropriate volume and space, responding
directly and accurately to questions and holding the judge’s interest. It also incorporates a cardinal rule
of mooting: never, ever talk while the judge is talking.

It is acceptable to ask a judge to repeat a question if you did not understand it, and that it is always the
best to say “I regret I am unable to assist your Lordship/Ladyship on that point” when you really do not
know the answer.

Mooting is not just presenting propositions of law. An important aspect is applying those propositions to
the facts in order to argue for the result you want. You should be very familiar with the mooting problem
and be able to take the judge to relevant paragraphs in it.

You will often make extensive use of authority in delivering your submissions. You need to know what
principle a given case stands for and if a case is binding on the court before which moot is being argued.

A critical aspect of mooting is time management. You need to be able to expand or contract you
submissions depending on how interventionist the judge is.”

Resilience

8
i
Adapted from “THE INTERNATIONAL ADR (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) MOOTING COMPETITION, City University
of Hong Kong https://www.cityu.edu.hk partnered with School of Law, China International Economic And Trade
Arbitration Commission, United Nations UNCITRAL, Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific, Curtin University