The main commercial dispute resolution mechanism used in Zambia is litigation, with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms of arbitration being an alternative method; mediation and negotiation are also used in certain instances. 

Litigation

Litigation in the Zambian courts is the default and most widely used mechanism for the resolution of domestic commercial disputes, particularly among parties that have not expressly contracted for arbitration. The Commercial Division of the High Court is designed as a fast-track court specifically for business and trade disputes, offers-structured case management, and targets resolution – ideally within six to 12 months from the date of commencement, though normally matters take up to two years to conclude.

Arbitration

Arbitration is the favoured alternative to litigation for commercial disputes and its use is increasing, particularly in relation to:

• mining disputes pursuant to the Minerals Regulations Commission Act, 2024;
• the enforcement of rights and obligations contained in power purchase agreements entered into with the Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation;
• construction disputes;
• conveyancing disputes;
• contract disputes more generally; and
• public procurement disputes.

Court-Annexed Mediation

Owing to the non-binding nature of mediation in Zambia, parties sometimes commence litigation with a view to benefiting from court-annexed mediation introduced by Statutory Instrument (SI) No 71 of 1997, and most recently reformed by the High Court (Amendment) Rules, SI No 72 of 2018. This operates as a mandatory referral system for disputes utilised by judges at the scheduling conference stage, for appropriate cases, although parties can ask for a referral. The resulting Consent Mediation Settlement Order is binding and not subject to appeal.

Negotiation

Negotiation is widely employed as the first step in resolving a wide range of commercial disputes in Zambia. It is used if disputes arise from a sale, lease or supplier disputes.

Conciliation and Adjudication

Conciliation and adjudication are increasingly used methods in the settlement of construction disputes.

The Zambian dispute resolution landscape continues to undergo significant institutional and legislative transformation. The High Court (Amendment) Rules, SI No 58 of 2020 (the “Amended Rules”) reinforced the requirement for parties to attempt amicable settlement of their disputes by making it mandatory for a plaintiff to send a letter of demand before commencing litigation. The Amended Rules also introduced the need for evidence in chief to be provided through the use of witness statements, for non-commercial disputes, so that trials conducted before the High Court Principal Division are fast tracked (similar to those before the Commercial Division). 

Additionally, it empowers judges to resolve interlocutory applications in the absence of the parties in cases where the parties’ attendance to make oral arguments is unnecessary, while setting out timeframes for delivery of judgments and rulings – 120 days and 90 days respectively – and the procedure for judges obtaining extensions of these mandatory timeframes from the Chief Justice. The Amended Rules also mandate judges to notify parties of the date for delivery of judgment or rulings.

In relation to arbitration, there has been little change since the enactment of the Arbitration Act in 2000 – until recently. The following are the key trends.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Bill 2026

In early 2026, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Bill was formally presented to the Minister of Justice. The Bill seeks to align Zambia’s arbitration framework with the 2006 revisions to the UNCITRAL Model Law, establish a clear statutory basis for mediation, and introduce adjudication mechanisms for construction and commercial disputes.

Currency Regulation and Its Impact on Decisions

A notable recent development with implications for litigation, arbitration and ADR is the introduction of the Bank of Zambia Currency Directives, 2025 (the “Directives”). Under these Directives, all domestic transactions must be settled in Zambian kwacha (ZMW), subject to limited exceptions.

The Directives do not expressly regulate arbitral awards. However, they affect the settlement currency of monetary awards granted irrespective of the parties’ choice of dispute resolution mechanism because their application is contingent on whether the payment of an award constitutes a “domestic transaction” within the meaning of the Directives. Where a decision gives rise to a payment obligation between parties resident in Zambia, and settlement is effected within the jurisdiction, such payment falls within the scope of the Directives and must therefore be made in Zambian kwacha, notwithstanding that the underlying contract or award may be denominated in foreign currency.

Growth of Statutory Arbitration

There is an emerging legislative trend in Zambia towards promoting or mandating arbitration as the mechanism of choice for resolving disputes in key economic sectors. For instance, the Public Procurement Act prescribes arbitration for settlement of public procurement disputes. In contrast, the Minerals Regulation Commission Act includes arbitration as an option for resolving disputes relating to mining and surface rights. These statutory frameworks reflect an emerging policy in Zambia to entrench arbitration as a central mechanism for resolving disputes in key economic industries.

Growing Acceptance of Arbitration Among Domestic Parties

While litigation remains predominant overall, arbitration is becoming more widely accepted among domestic commercial entities, particularly in cross-border transactions. This trend is being driven by growing familiarity with arbitral institutions, the increase in international commercial activity involving Zambian entities, increased training and accreditation of Zambian arbitrators and mediators, and the constitution of a local professional community capable of supporting institutional arbitration.

Limitation periods are prescribed in the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, etc.) Act, Chapter 72 of the Laws of Zambia as read with the Limitation Act 1939 of the United Kingdom (applicable to Zambia by virtue of the English Acts (Extent of Application) Act, Chapter 11 of the Laws of Zambia).

The principal limitation periods applicable to civil claims in Zambia are as follows:

• contract and general tort – six years;
• personal injury claims – three years;
• fatal accidents – three years from the date of death;
• contracts under seal (specialty) – 12 years;
• judgment enforcement – 12 years (with arrears of interest recoverable only for six years);
• recovery of land – 12 years;
• penalties and forfeitures – two years;
• arrears of rent – six years;
• mortgage actions (recovery of principal money) – 12 years;
• arrears of interest on a mortgage – six years;
• non-fraudulent breach of trust – six years;
• claims relating to the personal estate of a deceased person – 12 years; and
• Industrial Relations Division claims – 90 days.

Under the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No 2 of 2016 (the “Constitution”), the Zambian judiciary is structured as follows:

• the Supreme Court;
• the Constitutional Court;
• the Court of Appeal;
• the High Court;
• the Subordinate Court;
• the Small Claims Court; and
• the Local Court.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is established under Article 125 of the Constitution as the final court of appeal in Zambia, hearing appeals from the Court of Appeal. Appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court are not automatic. A party wishing to appeal has to apply for permission to appeal, firstly to the Court of Appeal and, if denied, to the Supreme Court. Permission to appeal will only be allowed if either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court is convinced that one or more of the following grounds is established:

• the appeal raises a point of law of public importance;
• it is desirable and in the public interest that the matter be determined by the Supreme Court;
• the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
• there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court is established under Articles 127 to 129 of the Constitution. It ranks equivalently to the Supreme Court but exercises a wholly distinct jurisdiction.

• It has original, exclusive and final jurisdiction over matters involving the interpretation of the Constitution. Where a constitutional question arises in the course of proceedings before any other court, the judge may refer it to the Constitutional Court for determination.
• It does not hear appeals arising from commercial or general civil disputes. That jurisdiction is reserved for the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal is established under Article 130 of the Constitution, and operates under the Court of Appeal Act and the Court of Appeal Rules of 2016. It is the mandatory court of appeal for decisions from the High Court and certain tribunals. Consequently, no civil appeal can go directly from domestic tribunals or the High Court to the Supreme Court, unless this is expressly permitted by an Act of Parliament. Other than in excepted cases, appeals to the Court of Appeal from the High Court are automatic.

The High Court

The High Court derives its existence from Article 133(1) of the Constitution and is further governed by the High Court Act, Chapter 27 of the Laws of Zambia. It exercises unlimited original jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters and has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction as prescribed by law. The current structure comprises four divisions:

• the General List (Principal Registry) – handles civil claims exceeding ZMW100,000 that do not arise from business transactions or employment matters, although matters in this financial threshold are now being referred to the Subordinate Court following an increase in its jurisdiction to ZMW1 million;
• the Commercial Division – handles matters arising from transactions relating to commerce, trade, industry or any business action;
• the Industrial Relations Division – exercises original and exclusive jurisdiction over employment disputes, trade union matters, and all proceedings under the Industrial and Labour Relations Act;

• the Economic and Financial Crimes Court Division – handles matters relating to economic and financial crimes and corruption; and

• the Family and Children’s Division – handles matrimonial causes, maintenance, custody, and care and placement matters under the relevant family legislation.

The Subordinate Court

The Subordinate Courts are governed by the Subordinate Courts Act, Chapter 28 of the Laws of Zambia. Key developments include the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act No 23 of 2023, which introduced internal divisions of this Court, namely:

• the General Division;
• the Economic and Financial Crimes Division;
• the Gender-Based Violence Division;
• the Roads and Road Traffic Offences Division; and
• the By-Law Breaches Division.

It has fixed monetary thresholds that each rank of Magistrate is allowed to preside over and grant as compensation in a civil case, arising from a contract or tort, or both, as follows:

• Chief Resident Magistrate – not more than ZMW1 million;
• Principal Resident Magistrate – not more than ZMW900,000;
• Senior Resident Magistrate – not more than ZMW500,000;
• Resident Magistrate – not more than ZMW300,000;
• Magistrate of the First Class – not more than ZMW150,000;
• Magistrate of the First Class – not more than ZMW100,000; and
• Magistrate of the Third Class – not more than ZMW75,000.

Similarly, the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court in land matters is divided according to the rank of Magistrates, with the Subordinate Court of the First Class having the authority to determine disputes concerning annual rent of not more than ZMW250,000, or land whose value does not exceed ZMW1 million, while for the courts presided over by the Chief Resident Magistrate, Principal Resident Magistrate, Senior Resident Magistrate and Resident Magistrate the annual rent in the dispute cannot be more than ZMW500,000.

The Small Claims Court

This is established under the Small Claims Courts Act, Chapter 47, as amended by the Small Claims Courts (Amendment) Act No 15 of 2025. The key features of this court include the following:

• resolution of small fixed-amount money claims not exceeding ZMW75,000, although the Chief Justice is empowered to increase this threshold;
• no legal representation allowed; and
• companies and other legal entities may not be claimants.

The principal pre-action requirement under Zambian law is the issuance and service of a letter of demand setting out the nature of the claim to encourage settlement before commencing proceedings by writ of summons in the High Court, failing which an action is considered incompetent and dismissible.

Commencement

Civil proceedings in the High Court are initiated by filing the appropriate originating document at the relevant registry. Under the High Court Rules, Chapter 27, there are four recognised modes of commencement:

• writ of summons;
• petition;
• originating notice of motion; and
• originating summons.

Service and Appearance

Once the originating process is served, the defendant must enter appearance and file a defence within the timeframe prescribed by the distance between the defendant’s location and the issuing registry:

• 14 days for defendants within 100km;
• 21 days for those within 100km to 500km;
• 30 days for those beyond 500km within Zambia; and
• 42 days for defendants outside the jurisdiction.

Failure to enter a defence entitles the plaintiff to apply for judgment in default under Order XII of the High Court Rules, depending on the nature of the claim.

There is currently no provision that allows a defendant to enter a conditional memorandum of appearance and file an application challenging the validity of the action. A defendant must first enter unconditional appearance before challenging the continuation of the action.

Scheduling Conference

Within 30 days after the close of pleadings, the court is required to convene a scheduling conference at which the judge issues an order for directions, including the timeframe for a reply and defence to counterclaim, if any. The scheduling conference is also the point at which the judge must, in appropriate cases, refer the action to court-annexed mediation.

Trial

Trials in the High Court are conducted in person, in open court, following the adversarial model. The plaintiff leads its witnesses, who are cross-examined and may be re-examined. After both sides close their cases, the parties file written submissions. The court then delivers its judgment in writing.

In Subordinate Courts (Magistrates’ Courts), trials are also conducted in person and in open court, but the procedure is generally less formal. Evidence is led by the plaintiff, and witnesses are cross-examined and may be re-examined. Trials in this court often occur on a “trial by ambush” basis, meaning that parties are not expected to exchange witness statements, although documentary evidence may be exchanged in advance. 

Duration of Proceedings

Commercial Division proceedings are designed to run from commencement to judgment within six to 12 months, but typically range from one to two years.

The Principal Division and other divisions typically take longer, as matters can run for 18 months to three or more years at first instance where there are substantial interlocutory applications or court backlog issues.

Court proceedings are public. Members of the public and the press may attend hearings, inspect filed documents upon payment of the prescribed search fee, and obtain copies of judgments. However, family proceedings and applications to set aside arbitral awards are normally held in private. Proceedings in which national security interests arise are required to be held in private under the State Security Act, Chapter 109 of the Laws of Zambia.

The following forms of interim relief are available and regularly granted:

• interlocutory injunctions – an interlocutory injunction restrains a party from doing or continuing to do a specified act pending the final determination of the dispute;
• mandatory injunctions – these require a party to take a positive step, such as restoring goods, demolishing an unauthorised structure, or performing a contractual obligation, pending determination of the dispute; and
• interim attachment of property – the court may attach property as a form of asset preservation pending the resolution of the proceedings.

Contempt

Breach of an injunction order, whether interlocutory or final, exposes the respondent to proceedings for contempt of court, which may result in the imposition of a fine or a term of imprisonment, or both.

The final reliefs typically granted by courts include the following:

• Award of compensation sought, such as outstanding debt, etc.
• Damages, which can further be broken down into the following categories:
1. general damages – compensation for harm flowing from the nature of the wrong (eg, pain, suffering or reputational injury, assessed at the court’s discretion);
2. special damages – compensation for specific, provable and quantifiable losses, such as medical bills or lost profits (must be pleaded and proved);
3. aggravated damages – extra compensation in exceptional tort cases to reflect additional injury caused by the defendant’s malice or oppressive conduct;
4. exemplary (punitive) damages – awarded for egregious or reckless conduct intended for material gain (requires proof and specific pleading); and
5. nominal damages – token award recognising a legal right violation where no actual loss occurred.
• Specific performance – an equitable remedy compelling performance of a contractual obligation, typically for unique items such as land which is not granted if damages suffice.
• Restitution – restores money or property where the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the claimant’s expense.
• Foreclosure of mortgaged property.
• Final injunctions – permanent court order restraining a party from committing a wrong (enforceable by contempt).
• Declaratory judgments – the court confirms the legal rights or obligations of parties without ordering payment or action.
• Interest on judgments – pre-judgment interest at short-term bank rates, and post-judgment interest up to the Bank of Zambia’s lending rate until payment.

In both contract and tort, the aim is to restore the claimant to the position they would have been in had the wrong not occurred, while requiring them to mitigate their loss.

Contract

The remoteness principle

Damages are limited to losses that arise naturally from the breach or were reasonably contemplated by both parties at the time of contracting.

Tort

Full compensation

The court seeks to return the injured party to their pre-tort position.

General damages are based on the nature and impact of the wrong, while special damages cover specific, provable losses such as medical bills, repair costs or lost profits, and must be itemised and evidenced.

The use of arbitration has increased in the last ten years, with the construction industry favouring its use for dispute resolution, followed by parties to power purchase agreements.

The following matters are specifically barred from being resolved by arbitration:

• disputes arising from agreements that are contrary to public policy;
• criminal matters;
• matrimonial disputes;
• paternity and maternity disputes; and
• disputes involving the interests of minors such as custody and maintenance.

Advantages of the use of arbitration include the following:

• the speed with which matters are determined;
• preservation of continuing relationships between the parties through speed and confidentiality of the process;
• providing parties with a choice of arbitrator or tribunal with the relevant expertise required for resolution of the dispute;
• the informality of the process makes it less costly for the parties, who can handle the process themselves without involving the costly service of counsel;
• Zambia is a New York Convention state, thereby allowing for enforceability of awards rendered in other New York Convention states;
• procedural law used in arbitrations is derived from common law;
• arbitrators are mainly trained through or by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (London), thereby raising the standard of arbitration;
• the award rendered is final and binding on the parties, bringing finality to the dispute; and
• there is no appeal to the courts and the only recourse is setting aside, which does not interrogate the merits of the award but rather the process.

While the process is cheaper than court proceedings, the arbitrator comes at a great cost with reference to the scale of fees prescribed by the parties’ choice of arbitral institution in Zambia.

The process of setting aside an arbitral award can take several years to be concluded, initially by the High Court, and thereafter the Court of Appeal, with the option of the aggrieved party pursuing leave to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

Although there are arbitral institutions, they do not take total control of the proceedings, with their services being largely confined to the appointment of the arbitral tribunal and providing a venue for the proceedings. This leaves the arbitrator at large, in some cases resulting in delay, with no quality control over the process and resulting award.

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators – Zambia Branch has been the most popular arbitral institution in Zambia for several years. Recently, the Lusaka International Arbitration Centre was set up.

The typical length of arbitral proceedings is six to 12 months.

The key laws regulating arbitration in Zambia are:

• the Arbitration Act No 19 of 2000 as the principal legislation;
• the Arbitration (Court Proceedings) Rules, SI No 75 of 2001, which provide for rules on court intervention for interim relief and enforcement of awards;
• the Arbitration (Code of Conduct and Standards) Regulations, SI No 12 of 2007, which provide for the regulation of arbitrators and conduct of proceedings; and
• the Arbitration (Recognition of Arbitral Institutions) Regulations, 2001, which provide for registration and regulation of arbitral institutions.

The courts assist with:

• the appointment of arbitrators where the parties fail to agree;
• the taking of evidence and subpoena of witnesses;
• enforcement of the award, firstly by providing a mechanism for registration and recognition of awards, and secondly by enforcement through execution by the Sheriff of Zambia;
• setting-aside of arbitral awards;
• interlocutory relief prior to the appointment of the arbitral tribunal, or in instances where the tribunal is incompetent to grant the interim relief or the urgency of the matter makes it impracticable to seek the interim relief from the tribunal; and
• the staying of court proceedings and referral of parties to arbitration where a party has ignored the arbitration agreement.

The courts essentially have no power to intervene in arbitral proceedings unless a party applies to set aside an arbitral award. The courts’ power is, however, restricted to considerations of due process and not the merits of the award.

The relief that the arbitrator grants is in accordance with the nature of the dispute and the requests made by the parties in their claim and counterclaim, respectively.

As for interim measures, arbitrators are empowered to make any interim measure of protection deemed necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Zambia’s constitutional framework expressly promotes ADR under Article 118(2)(d) of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No 2 of 2016. The principal formal ADR mechanisms available for resolving commercial disputes outside litigation and arbitration include the following.

Court-Annexed Mediation

This is the most established form of ADR in Zambia. It was introduced by the High Court (Amendment) Rules, SI No 71 of 1997; it expanded mandatory mediation to all High Court divisions, allowed parties to choose mediators from an accredited panel, and extended the mediation period to 45 days. In the same year, court-annexed mediation was also extended to the Subordinate Court through SI No 73 of 2018.

Private/Commercial Mediation

This form of ADR is available outside the court framework through the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators – Zambia Branch, which has trained the majority of commercial mediators in Zambia.

Negotiation

Negotiation remains widely used, although it is not regulated by a specific statutory framework. Commercial contracts in Zambia frequently include negotiation as the first step of a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause.

Conciliation

This is another ADR mechanism available in Zambia, and is governed in the labour and employment context by Part IX of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act, Chapter 269 of the Laws of Zambia, which provides for conciliation of collective disputes.

There are no general statutory obligations compelling parties to commercial disputes to engage in ADR before commencing litigation or arbitration. Requirements arise from the following sources.

Contractual Obligations

The most common basis for an ADR requirement is a multi-tiered or escalation dispute resolution clause in a commercial contract, which requires the parties to attempt negotiation, mediation or conciliation before proceeding to arbitration or litigation.

Court-Ordered Mediation

Under Order 31, Rule 4(1) of the High Court Rules (as amended by SI No 72 of 2018), a judge must, at the scheduling conference and before trial, refer any matter suitable for mediation to court-annexed mediation, except where it involves constitutional issues, personal liberty or injunctions, or is otherwise unsuitable.

Similarly, under the Subordinate Court Rules (Order 43, Rule 17(1)), a court may refer a matter to mediation at any stage after the defence is filed but before hearing. Attendance at court-annexed mediation is compulsory once the referral order is made, since the referral is an order of the court.

Professional Obligations of Legal Practitioners

The Legal Practitioners (Professional Conduct) Rules impose an ethical duty on practitioners to encourage the amicable resolution of disputes. In particular, practitioners are required to advise clients on the desirability of settlement, including through ADR mechanisms, where appropriate. While this does not amount to a binding legal requirement on parties, it reinforces the broader policy favouring the use of ADR in dispute resolution.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

A party who fails to attend court-annexed mediation without reasonable cause may be condemned to pay costs regardless of the ultimate outcome of the litigation. Where a party fails to comply with a contractual ADR precondition before commencing proceedings, the court may stay those proceedings pending compliance.

Sector-Specific Requirements

Conciliation is a mandatory precondition to referral of collective labour disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under Part IX of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act, Chapter 269.

Effect on Litigation and Arbitration Rights

Engaging in ADR does not waive or extinguish a party’s right to litigate or arbitrate. ADR processes are consensual and without prejudice to the substantive rights of the parties unless and until a binding settlement is concluded. Parties retain the right to proceed to trial if mediation fails, and any matter referred to court-annexed mediation that is not settled within the mediation period is returned to the trial judge for continuation of the proceedings.

Legal Effect of a Mediated Settlement

A court-annexed mediation settlement has the same force and effect for all purposes as a judgment, order or decision of the court, and shall be enforced in the same manner. Private (non-court-annexed) mediation settlements, by contrast, do not carry the same status as they are enforceable only as contracts in the ordinary manner, and must be brought before the court for enforcement as such.

Typical Timing in Zambia

Mediation in Zambia is predominantly court-annexed and typically arises after proceedings have commenced. Under Order 31, Rule 4(1) of the High Court Rules (as amended by SI No 72 of 2018), referral occurs at the scheduling conference, before trial. In the Subordinate Court, referral may be made at any stage after the defence is filed but before hearing, under Order 43, Rule 17(1) (SI No 73 of 2018).

Once referred, mediation is to be concluded within 45 days from the date the mediator collects the court record. If it is not concluded within the 45 days, the matter must be returned to the trial judge, who will summon the parties within 14 days and issue further directions.

There is no provision in either the Limitation Act or the court-annexed mediation rules that automatically suspends the running of a limitation period by reason of engagement in ADR proceedings. As such, limitation continues to run during ADR.

All forms of ADR are confidential in nature.

The costs of ADR are allocated equally between the parties. In court-annexed mediation, the fees are low and set by the judiciary, while in arbitration the fees are determined in accordance with the scale of fees of the arbitral institution that the parties or arbitrator choose to adopt. In arbitration, parties are jointly and severally liable for the arbitrators’ fees and costs of the arbitration.

The Zambian courts are highly responsive to ADR and operate within a constitutional framework that expressly mandates promotion of ADR. Article 118(2)(d) of the Constitution mandates the judiciary to promote the use of ADR mechanisms, and court-annexed mediation has become an integral part of the judicial system by virtue of this constitutional provision; the judiciary actively promotes ADR by hosting mediation weeks.

Legal fees are governed by Part IX of the Legal Practitioners Act Chapter 30 of the Laws of Zambia, which provides for the Remuneration Committee of the Law Association of Zambia in consultation with the Chief Justice to prescribe the scale of fees due to practitioners in contentious and non-contentious matters.

In terms of Section 74 of the Legal Practitioners Act, a practitioner and a client can agree on a gross sum, commission, percentage, salary or other method of payment of legal fees. Such agreements must be in writing and can be sued upon. They can also depart from the scales of fees with the resulting agreement being subject to enforcement or variation by the taxing master.

The standard basis for legal fees between a practitioner and a client and for payment by a losing party in contentious matters in the High Court and appellate courts is the Legal Practitioners (Costs) Order, SI No 6 of 2017 (Contentious Matters). The Order also applies to proceedings before any commission, tribunal, board or other body before which a legal practitioner can appear.

Order 50 of the High Court Rules provides for the method of recovery of a practitioner’s costs, at least one month after providing the bill to the client. Non-contentious matters have their fees set out in the Legal Practitioners (Conveyancing and Non-Contentious Matters) (Costs) Order, SI No 7 of 2017.

There is no regulatory framework that governs third-party funding arrangements. Notably, the Legal Practitioners Act does not expressly permit, regulate or prohibit this. Consequently, there are no formal restrictions on who may fund litigation, no restrictions on the types of lawsuits that may be funded, and no minimum or maximum funding amounts prescribed by law.

Following the enactment of the Legal Practitioners’ Practice (Amendment) Rules, 2025, contingency fees which were previously prohibited by Section 81(1)(b) of the Legal Practitioners Act are now permitted. As such, a practitioner acting for a party in contentious proceedings can enter into a written agreement to charge contingency fees, provided the practitioner believes there are reasonable prospects of success. The agreement must disclose alternative funding options, the risk of adverse costs, and the possibility that the contingency fee may exceed fees ordinarily payable under the customary billing method.

There is currently no specific law governing the provision or prohibition of insurance coverage for litigation, arbitration and ADR. Since Zambian law recognises the principle of freedom to contract, there is arguably scope for insurance companies to provide insurance cover for litigation, arbitration and ADR to parties. 

The general rule in Zambia is that costs follow the event, meaning that the successful party is ordinarily entitled to recover its costs from the unsuccessful party, unless their conduct before and during the proceedings justifies the court depriving them of all or a portion of all their costs. This general rule applies to how costs are awarded in arbitration and other forms of ADR, with the exception of mediation, where the award of costs is subject to the agreement of the parties.

The factors taken into consideration when awarding costs are as follows:

• whether the successful party misconducted themselves in the roadmap leading to the successful decision;
• the necessity and proportionality of costs incurred;
• the reasonableness of a party raising and pursuing a particular allegation or issue;
• whether the successful party exaggerated their claim;
• the skill, labour and responsibility involved in the discharge of the advocates’ duties in prosecuting or defending the claim;
• whether there is certification justifying the appearance of two or more counsel;
• whether the success of the party is nominal;
• taxation is on a standard basis unless the underlying agreement between the parties enforced through the proceedings requires the unsuccessful party to pay indemnity costs; and
• any other matter relevant to the court’s discretion as to costs.

Security for costs may also be ordered in appropriate cases, particularly where the claim appears speculative or the plaintiff is outside the jurisdiction with no demonstrable means of settling the costs of the action if the claim fails.

Key types of interim relief include the following.

• Payment of an amount determined by the court as security to fulfil a decree that may be made against the defendant.
• In the event of failure to pay security, an order for interim attachment of the defendant’s property which it is feared may be removed from the jurisdiction. In this order, such property is placed in the plaintiff’s or a third party’s custody for safe keeping until determination of the matter.
• Interim interlocutory injunction compelling a party to refrain from committing an act that may lead to wastage, damage or alienation of property.
• Interim mandatory injunction compelling a party to do a stipulated act to preserve wastage, damage or alienation of property.
• Interim order compelling a party to refrain from repeating or continuing a breach of contract or from continuing to commit a tort.
• Interim order restraining a party to marriage from molesting an applicant or a child living with the applicant.
• Appointment of a receiver or manager for the preservation and improvement of the property.
• Order for sale of goods, wares or merchandise that are perishable in nature.

In arbitration cases, the court can grant the types of interim relief listed in 6.1 Availability of Interim Relief where an application is made after a dispute is declared but before appointment of arbitrators. Following appointment of the arbitrators, any interim relief is sought from the arbitrators, with the courts only assisting in enforcement of the interim relief where there is non-compliance. However, the court does not grant interim relief in other ADR mechanisms such as mediation or negotiation, unless in instances of court-annexed mediation where mediators do not have the authority to grant interim relief to the parties.

Applications may be made at commencement or at any time before determination of the matter.

A party can apply for security for costs pursuant to Order 23 of the Supreme Court Practice, 1999 Edition in the following circumstances:

• where the other party (usually the plaintiff) is ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction;
• where the plaintiff is a nominal plaintiff who is suing for the benefit of some other person and there is reason to believe that they will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if ordered to do so;
• where the plaintiff’s address is not stated in the originating process or is incorrectly stated therein; or
• where the plaintiff has changed their address during the course of the proceedings with a view to evading the consequences of the litigation.

Interim injunctions are typically applied for and granted at commencement or any time before determination of the matter when the party becomes aware of circumstances which give rise to the need for an interim injunction. Interim injunctions are typically granted at whatever point an application is made, provided the applicant demonstrates that:

• the applicant’s right to the underlying relief claimed in the action is clear, on the limited evidence available to the court at that stage, with the court being restricted from determining or delving into the main substance of the dispute at the injunction stage;
• damages will not be adequate to compensate the applicant from the loss suffered;
• irreparable injury and not mere inconvenience will be caused to the applicant if the injunction is not granted; and
• the balance of convenience tilts in their favour.

Under Order 12 of the High Court Rules, a party can apply for summary judgment before trial in the following circumstances:

• fixed-amount money demand (single defendant) – if the writ is endorsed for a liquidated demand and the defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff may enter final judgment for the sum claimed, with interest and costs;
• fixed-amount money demand (several defendants) – if some defendants appear and others fail, final judgment may be entered against those who fail, while proceedings continue against those who appear;
• damages or detention of goods (single defendant) – if the writ claims damages or detention of goods and the defendant fails to appear, interlocutory judgment may be entered, with damages assessed by inquiry or as directed by the court;
• damages or detention of goods (several defendants) – if some defendants appear and others fail, interlocutory judgment may be entered against those failing, with damages assessed alongside the trial against those who appeared;
• mixed claims (liquidated demand and damages or detention of goods) – if the writ includes both liquidated demand and damages or detention of goods, final judgment may be entered for the liquidated demand and interlocutory judgment for damages/goods against defendants who fail to appear;
• recovery of land – if no appearance is entered in an action for recovery of land, or if the defence is limited to other claims only, judgment may be entered for possession of the land (or for the part not defended); and
• mesne profits, rent or damages in land recovery – if such claims are endorsed on a writ for recovery of land, judgment may be entered for the land and interlocutory judgment for the additional claims.

Under Order XXI Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, the court may enter judgment summarily where a defendant makes a written unequivocal admission of all or part of the claimed amount.

Under Order 14A and 33 of the White Book, the court may determine a question of law or construction of a document at any stage of proceedings, on its own motion or on application by a party, where the issue can be resolved without a full trial and such resolution will conclusively dispose of the whole matter or any part of it.

If any person sues or is sued in a representative capacity, this should be expressed on the writ of summons, with the court reserving the power to add the represented parties in lieu of or in addition to the previously existing parties.

Where a party has a joint ground for instituting proceedings jointly with other persons, all those persons ought ordinarily to be made parties to the proceedings, while a party may be appointed to represent other persons with whom they have a joint interest in commencing or defending proceedings.

All persons who may be entitled to or claim some share or interest in the subject matter of the suit, or who may be likely to be affected by the result of the proceedings, have standing to participate in those proceedings.

The types of reliefs available in class actions are unlimited provided there is a common ground for instituting an action, or a common share or common interest in the subject matter or outcome of the action.

However, the reliefs claimed and damages awarded in class actions are granted/computed on an individual basis, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Zambia National Commercial Bank Plc v Geoffrey Muyamwa and 88 Others, Selected Judgment No 37 of 2018.

Class actions and mass claims are not frequently brought in arbitration. Some employment disputes have been arbitrated because the employment contracts opted for arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism. However, the numbers of employees involved have been limited.

There is a shift towards arbitration and conciliation of employment disputes, which is likely to lead to increased numbers of class actions and mass claims being resolved through these mechanisms.

Another key trend is that assessment of damages has evolved from using sample plaintiffs in various categories of claims to establish the entitlement of those who are “similarly circumstanced”, to each plaintiff’s entitlement to damages or relief sought being specifically proved.

There is an increase in the number of class actions and mass claims involving environmental harm and consequential damages against mines and manufacturers.

In civil proceedings commenced in the High Court, Order VI Rule 1(1) of the High Court (Amendment Rules), 2020, SI No 58 of 2020 (“SI 58”) places a duty on a plaintiff to disclose the documents intended to be relied on at trial in a list of documents that must accompany the writ of summons and statement of claim, among other documents. The duty to disclose the documents to be relied on at trial has been held by the courts to be mandatory, with the disclosing party required to disclose all documents that are necessary to prove their claim. Order XI Rule 1(1) of SI 58 also makes it mandatory for the defendant to file their defence with, among other documents, a list of documents to be relied on at trial to establish the rebuttals made in a defence.

Where an action is commenced in any way other than by writ of summons and statement of claim – such as by way of notice of motion, originating summons or petition – an affidavit may be needed in support of the action in which the documents to be relied on are disclosed and exhibited.

There is no mandatory requirement for disclosure of documents to be relied on at trial at commencement of the suit in the Subordinate Court where the claim is an unliquidated claim, as such a matter is commenced by writ of summons and statement of claim only. Disclosure of documents is done during trial after the litigant has laid a sufficient foundation for their intention to adduce a document. They then disclose the document to the court and other party, and apply for it to form part of their evidence if there is no objection raised by the opposing party.

However, where the claim is for a debt or a liquidated amount, the plaintiff has a mandatory obligation to disclose any documents relied upon in commencement of the action in the affidavit verifying debt, which is filed together with the default writ of summons.

The types of evidentiary privilege recognised in Zambia and upon which documents can be withheld from being adduced in court proceedings are as follows:

• public policy privilege, which includes privilege state privilege (a general common law privilege);
• legal professional privilege, which is protected under the Legal Practitioners’ Act, Chapter 30 of the Laws of Zambia; and
• without-prejudice communication exchanged by the parties in an effort to settle the dispute amicably either before or during the dispute.

Circumstances When Privilege Can Be Waived

Privilege arising from public policy is not absolute, as it can be waived in the interest of justice. Legal professional privilege can be waived by the party it is intended to protect or by an order of court pursuant to Rule 29(4)(e) of the Legal Practitioners’ Practice Rule, SI No 51 of 2002.

In Zambia, the right to withhold evidence on grounds of confidentiality is recognised for privileged persons, such as lawyers in relation to information provided to them by their clients, doctors in relation to their patients and officials in relation to state secrets.

Recognised exceptions to the duty of confidentiality include:

• where a judge or magistrate decides that confidentiality outweighs the need for evidence;
• where justice or public safety requires disclosure; and
• where the party that the right to confidentiality is intended to protect waives that right.

In civil proceedings commenced in the High Court by writ of summons, witness evidence is contained in a witness statement, which is filed ahead of trial pursuant to Order XIX Rule 2(2)(c) of SI 58. The witness statement contains the facts relevant to the claim, which should refer to documents contained in the bundle of documents filed by the party ahead of trial. During trial and once the witness statement is duly admitted into evidence following confirmation by the witness of their preparation and signing thereof, the opposing party – by themselves or their lawyer – can cross-examine the witness if they wish to.

In other matters commenced by originating summons, notice of motion or petition, a witness’s evidence is contained in an affidavit filed together with the originating process. The opposing party is allowed to file an affidavit in opposition rebutting any issues and providing evidence in support of their defence. Unless, on the application of a party, an order is made by the court allowing for presentation of oral evidence at trial despite filing of affidavits, witnesses are not cross-examined as the respective affidavits are taken to have sufficiently tested the evidence.

In the Subordinate Court, unless evidence is contained in an affidavit (in the case of a debt or a liquidated claim or an action commenced by notice of motion, originating summons or petition), a witness’s evidence is orally adduced during trial. Thereafter, the opposing party is allowed to cross-examine the witness. Where evidence is contained in an affidavit, the opposing party is allowed to file an affidavit in opposition, rebutting any allegations made by the other party and adducing evidence therein to support their defence. The procedure in the Subordinate Court is, however, more flexible than in the High Court as a witness that has filed an affidavit can still present oral evidence and be cross-examined by the other party.

The Use of Witness Depositions

Although depositions are provided for under Order V Rule 26 of the High Court Rules, they are generally not resorted to in court proceedings in Zambia.

Expert evidence is permitted in Zambia pursuant to Order XIX Rule 2(2)(d) of SI 58 and Order 38 of the Supreme Court Practice, 1999 Edition. Experts are appointed by the parties jointly on agreement or by the party seeking to rely on expert evidence with leave of the court.

Duties of Experts

Although there are no explicit duties of experts provided for under the High Court Rules and the Supreme Court Practice, 1999 Edition, experts have the same duties as other ordinary witnesses generally, which includes providing evidence of fact based on their expertise. Additionally, expert evidence is meant to aid the court in reaching a just decision; as such, experts have the duty to be impartial.

A judgment obtained from a court in a foreign country can be recognised and enforced in Zambia in the following ways:

• applying for registration of that judgment in the High Court of Zambia under the Foreign Judgments Act, enacted during colonial times, if that judgment was obtained from a court in a country that was is part of British dominions by ex parte summons accompanied by an affidavit exhibiting a certified, sealed and translated copy of the judgment issued by the original court; and
• judgments obtained from countries other than British dominions can be recognised and enforced under the common law by way of the applicant (the successful party in the foreign court) commencing an action in the High Court, with the cause of action being based on the foreign judgment.

According to Section 18 of the Arbitration Act, applications for registration or recognition of domestic and foreign arbitral awards can be made to the High Court. This is done by way of ex parte originating summons supported by an affidavit to which the authenticated original award and arbitration agreement or certified copies of both are exhibited.

Enforcement proceedings take two to three months between filing of the application and obtaining of the order recognising or registering the arbitral award, unless the unsuccessful party challenges the application.

Under the Foreign Judgments Act, enforcement of foreign judgments can be resisted on the basis that the enforcement proceedings were commenced six years after the delivery of the foreign judgment by the court in the foreign country, or the foreign judgment is not final and conclusive as between the parties – such as when there is an appeal pending thereto, or if the judgment has ordered payment of taxes or other charges of a like nature, or a fine or other penalty.

Under the Arbitration Act, enforcement of an arbitral award can be resisted on the following grounds:

• a party to the arbitration agreement was under incapacity or the agreement is invalid;
• the party was not properly notified of the arbitrator’s appointment or proceedings, or was unable to present their case;
• the award addresses disputes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement (though separable valid parts may still be enforced);
• the tribunal’s composition or procedure was inconsistent with the parties’ agreement or the law of the arbitration seat;
• the award is not yet binding; and
• the award has been set aside or suspended by a competent court.

The use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution is not regulated in this jurisdiction.

This topic is not applicable (see 10.1 Regulation).

The judiciary launched a pilot project for transcribing court proceedings using AI, and is also exploring the use of AI for research in the preparation of judgments as well as to educate the judiciary on the dangers of AI against which it should safeguard.