THE INDISPENSABILITY OF BOARD EVALUATION FOR SUSTAINABLE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Board evaluation is essential to sustainable corporate governance because it ensures that boards remain effective, accountable, and responsive to changing institutional and stakeholder demands. Many governance failures do not occur suddenly but develop over time when boards become passive, fail to question management or lose clarity in their oversight role. Board evaluation comes in handy to provide a structured way to assess how well boards perform their duties, clarify the boundary between governance and management and identify areas for improvement. By promoting reflection, accountability, and continuous improvement, board evaluation strengthens decision-making, builds stakeholder trust and supports the long-term stability and resilience of institutions.

Recent Posts

Reflections from the Lusaka Arbitration Week 2026

The formal handover of Zambia’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Bill marks a significant step toward creating a unified legislative framework for arbitration, mediation, and construction dispute resolution. At the same time, Kenya is pursuing parallel reforms through proposed legislation including the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill, the Dispute Resolution Bill and the Construction Payments Adjudication Bill, highlighting two different but complementary approaches to strengthening ADR systems in the region. Viewed together, these reforms signal a broader shift across African infrastructure markets toward clearer enforcement mechanisms, stronger institutions, and more accessible dispute resolution frameworks.

Reflections from the Zambia Arbitration Week – The Two Percent Problem: Enforcing Dispute Board Decisions

In construction dispute resolution circles, one statistic is repeated so frequently that it has almost become a mantra. Dispute boards resolve approximately 98% of the disputes referred to them. It is an impressive figure and understandably so. The number features prominently in conference presentations, training materials, and advocacy for the dispute board model. But the remaining 2% deserves attention.

Rule 5 (2) (b) Applications and the Constitutional Threshold for Appeals to the Supreme Court under Article 163 (4) (a): A Commentary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roseline Orimba Onduo v Maurice Otieno Ochola [KESC]

Article 163 (4) (a) permits appeals to the Supreme Court as of right only in cases involving the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Yet, the content of that threshold is often misunderstood, despite the Supreme Court settling it in previous cases. Equally contested is whether interlocutory orders under Rule 5 (2) (b) of the Court of Appeal Rules can warrant an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, once again, settled the law on these issues. This commentary answers these questions together with other pertinent issues in appellate litigation; such as the nature of negative orders and why they cannot be stayed.
WEB DEVELOPMENT | WEB DESIGN

LETS DO IT

This website uses cookies to enhance performance and ensure you have a good experience on our website. Cookies used are found here