Background: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) advocates a 15-20% allocation of the developing nations’ annual budget to educational development, but the available resources are not adequate to support the sector in the global south. Thus, University Hostel Development and Management (UHDM) policy was selected to attract private investors for the provision of educational facilities in Nigerian public universities. The policy considered a public-private partnership (PPP) model to ameliorate the menace of dilapidated infrastructures. Initially, there was massive investors’ participation until contractual disputes started to undermine the success recorded. Therefore, incessant disputes without resourceful resolutions motivate the need to examine this policy and spot the gaps for necessary improvement. Policy: The National Universities Commission (NUC) augments the provision of infrastructure in Nigerian public universities through the UHDM initiative in 2004. Conflicts owing to the multiplicity of stakeholders’ contrasting interests overwhelmed the initiative. Many value-added projects were terminated. The poor condition of facilities lingers to serve as a basic factor for half-baked graduates, low employee productivity and declined socio-economic values of the nation. This brief focuses on the role of formal dispute resolution mechanisms (DRMs) for conflict management in PPP arrangements. By observation, stakeholders rarely envisage potential conflicts, thus, no contemplation of specific DRMs adoption despite the inevitability of contractual disputes. Recommendations: This brief recommends the inclusion of the dispute resolution policy in the PPP Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Recommendations are hereby generated from the analysis of the stakeholders’ opinions on the causes of the dispute, conflict prevention strategies, and the relevant dispute resolution mechanisms peculiar to the PPP contracts in educational institutions. Also, ambiguities in the policy that bordered on an inexplicit institutional framework, lack of PPP experts’ involvement, imperfect contract agreement, and deficiency of feasibility study, are resolved by the recommendations.