The paper examined African peace building strategies against western alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism to assess their comparative effectiveness and the need for integration in contemporary conflict resolution. The aim and objective of this paper was to evaluate the theoretical foundations and practical applications of indigenous African peace building approaches versus Western ADR models, identifying strengths, limitations and possibilities for collaborative frameworks. The study analyzed the philosophical understanding of African traditions rooted in Ubuntu and communalism, and also examined Western ADR mechanism within individualistic frameworks. This led to critiquing the transplantation of Western models into African contexts, and proposing culturally sensitive hybrid framework. The qualitative comparative analysis research methodology was employ through extensive literature review of variable case studies like Rwanda’s Gacaca Court, Burundis Bashing anntalhe system, and West African palaver tradition through documenting power dynamics and epistemological bases in both approaches. The finding revealed that African peace building strategies effectively addresses communal conflict and restores social cohesion through community engagement and spiritual reconciliation but faces obstacles with documentations and objectivity. While the Western ADR offers systematic procedural narrative, yet this proves culturally alienating and excludes community participation and perpetuates neo-colonial power imbalances. In bridging this gap, the paper recommended the validation of legal frameworks recognizing indigenous mechanism and continuous documentation of traditional practices. This integrated African conflict resolution into educational curriculum capacity building for traditional institutions as well as cross-regional knowledge exchange platforms and developing adaptations for urban and transnational conflicts. The paper also closed the existing gap in peace building creating sustainable peace rooted in cultural values. The paper finally concluded that, effective resolution requires hybrid mechanism centering on indigenous knowledge while selectively incorporating Western elements for procedural clarity, cultural self-determination and community ownership.