The purpose of the study is to compare the dispute resolution systems of Uganda and South Africa. The historical developments of both systems were discussed so as to understand the factors that contributed to their growth or demise. From the study, it is clear to see that the Ugandan system’s development has been greatly affected with every regime change, between 1894 to the present. The developments that were tackled are closely related to various historical and political phases through which Uganda has passed and these significant periods are 1894- 1962 (pre-independence), 1962-1971 (Obote 1), 1971-1979 (Amin), 1980-1985 (Obote II), 1986- 2006 (NRM) and 2006 to the present Multi-party system. The South African system on the other hand is divided into four eras with the first one beginning from 1870 to 1948, the second era from 1948 to 1979, the third from 1979-1994 and the last era from 1994 to the present date. The South African system has been greatly influenced by the past government’s move to create a dual system of labour relations that was eventually removed. The two systems were compared using a framework created basing on literature by ILO (2013), Brand, Lotter, Mischke, & Steadman (1997) and Thompson (2010). The framework for comparison outlines the elements of a dispute resolution which include the nature of the dispute, coverage, processes, avenues and human resources. It further presents the criteria and possible indicators to evaluate the performance of the system which are legitimacy, efficiency, informality, affordability, accessibility, a full range of services, accountability and resources. The comparison highlighted the various differences between both countries. The study established differences in the nature of disputes as the Ugandan system does not differentiate between the different types of dispute unlike the South African system which differentiates them and has different avenues for their settlement, the fact that the South African system has a number of avenues to cater to the different types of disputes unlike the Ugandan system which only has one route beginning with the Labour officers and the Industrial court if unresolved. An evaluation of the performance of both systems brought to light the number of changes the Ugandan system has to undergo so as to meet the expectations of the International Labour Organisation and have an effective system. The South African system proves to be more legitimate, efficient, informal, affordable, and accessible than the Ugandan system. Further still the South African system provides a full range of services is more accountable and has enough resources when compared with the Ugandan system. Recommendations have been proposed at the end of the study, mainly for the Ugandan system as the South African system appears to be more advanced and more effective in dispute resolution by international standards. The recommendations suggested are creating an independent dispute resolution system, mass sensitisation on labour rights, accreditation of private agencies, create a separate dispute resolution system for the informal sector, proper routing of disputes, creation of an independent body to monitor the national system, encouraging the creation of more democratic workplaces, re-establish the industrial court and finally, employing and training more labour officers.