Zambia has become a hotspot for foreign direct investment in the past few years as a result of several investment opportunities in the country. As a result, Zambia has become an integral place for investing and doing business in Africa with international players investing substantially in  mining, agriculture, energy, petroleum, construction and transportation.

Considering the high value of most commercial transactions internationally and locally, international parties and a substantial number of local parties have acknowledged that arbitration is the best form of dispute resolution with respect to commercial disputes. Further, the prevalence of international commercial transactions involving domestic parties has significantly increased and contributed to positive attitudes towards the use of international arbitration to resolve commercial disputes.

Despite commercial dispute resolution by way of arbitration being on the rise in Zambia, the domestic parties still favour litigation as a way of dispute resolution for most disputes in Zambia, suffice to add that arbitration is party-based and the parties will agree in contracts to have arbitration as the method of dispute resolution or will have separate arbitration agreements agreeing to resolve disputes by way of arbitration.

In recent years several key industries in the country have experienced a significant surge in international arbitration activities. However, the main key sectors that have significantly benefited from international arbitration in Zambia are mining, energy, construction and infrastructure. This is because of the substantial amounts of money being invested in these key industries by international companies and the need to maintain a high level of confidentiality of the proceedings.

Additionally, with respect to the procurement sector, legislative interventions in Zambia have made it mandatory for disputes in the public procurement sector to be resolved by way of arbitration. Zambia highly depends on the import of goods and services. This also extends to the public sector which heavily relies on imported goods. Therefore, all disputes in this sector are now resolved by arbitration.

Although it is not possible to specify which arbitral institutions are most used in Zambia, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Zambia Branch is likely to be the most used arbitral institution as it specifically has a branch housed in Zambia which helps in managing the parties’ costs in relation to arbitration. Suffice to add that the International Chamber of Commerce and the London Court of International Arbitration are also leading arbitral institutions in Zambia. However, recently, the country has had a significant development in the arbitration space with the establishment of the Lusaka International Arbitration Centre (LIAC), which opened on 15 April 2024. The country is expectant that LIAC will help further encourage the growth of international arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Zambia and help international and local parties resolve their disputes more expeditiously and privately.

In Zambia, there are no specific courts that have been designated to hear arbitration-related disputes. However, the High Court of Zambia hears all applications relating to the registration and enforcement of arbitral awards and applications for setting aside arbitral awards. 

The primary law that regulates arbitration proceedings in Zambia is the Arbitration Act No 19 of 2000 (the “Arbitration Act”). The Act by virtue of Section 8 adopts and domesticates, with modifications, the UNCITRAL Model Law. The modifications are not substantive and do not make a material departure from the Model Law. They merely align the content to local needs.

Additionally, by virtue of Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, the Investments Disputes Convention Act, Chapter 42, Volume 4 of the Laws of Zambia domesticates the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (1965) (the “ICSID Convention”). Further, the Arbitration Act is supported by the Arbitration (Court Proceedings) Rules Statutory Instrument No 75 of 2001 and the Arbitration (Code of Conduct and Standards) Regulations contained in Statutory Instrument No 12 of 2007.

Zambia has not passed any new legislation or amended the Arbitration Act in recent years. Additionally, there is no pending bill that is awaiting ratification in parliament or has been proposed by Zambia՚s law makers. However, because of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which was revised in 2006, there are ongoing consultations with stakeholders, both in the private and public sectors, to try and harmonise the Act and align its content and application to international standards and trends in accordance with the revised UNCITRAL Model Law.

According to the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement must be contained in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. An arbitration agreement must be in writing if it is contained in a document signed by the parties or in an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement, or in an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by another. Also, a reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement, provided that the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that clause part of the contract.

In Zambia parties to an arbitration agreement are at liberty to subject any dispute to arbitration. However, the Arbitration Act in Section 6 (2) provides that the following are matters that are not capable of determination by way of arbitration:

• agreements or matters that are contrary to public policy;
• a criminal matter or proceedings, except in so far as permitted by written law or unless the court grants leave for the matter or proceedings to be determined by arbitration;
• matrimonial or incidental matters, unless a court grants permission;
• matters related to the determination of paternity, maternity or parentage; and/or
• matters affecting the interests of minors or persons under legal incapacity, unless represented by a competent person.

Further, where a party to the arbitration agreement believes that a matter is not arbitrable, such a party can challenge the arbitration on grounds of the “arbitrability” of the matter to the arbitral tribunal who then hears and determines whether the matter that has been referred to arbitration is capable of determination by way of arbitration. A jurisdictional issue can be raised within the arbitration proceedings at the earliest possible time or after the delivery of the arbitration award.

There is a wealth of jurisprudence in Zambia of cases brought before the courts where questions surrounding matters of governing law, enforcement of arbitration agreements and such related issues have been determined. The attitude of the courts has been supportive of noninterference in matters subject to arbitration, and the courts have respected agreements that deferred disputes to arbitration and have tended not to interfere in the resolution of those disputes, provided that the arbitration agreement is valid, binding enforceable.

The attitude is generally positive and supportive of the decisions by parties to arbitrate, and the courts have readily recognised arbitral awards and rendered assistance in their enforcement.

The courts in Zambia have readily enforced valid and binding arbitration agreements and have in fact gone further in stating that the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine matters that are the subject of a valid arbitration agreement when a party raises a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter. There are also rules which are designed to prescribe the procedure to employ where parties are seeking supervisory or executory assistance. The Arbitration (Court Proceedings) Rules 2001 deal with:

• the staying of proceedings;
• requests for interim measures of protection;
• the appointment of arbitrators and their challenge;
• the enforcement of awards and their challenge; and
• the confidentiality of the arbitration process.

An arbitration clause contained in an invalid contract in Zambia is still valid. This is because Article 16 of the UNICITRAL Model Laws provides that an arbitration clause is independent from the main contract. Additionally, a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void does not invalidate the arbitration clause. In this regard, the principle of separability of the arbitration agreement in invalid contracts is applicable in Zambia.

The parties are free to agree on the procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Arbitration Act and Article 11 (2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Considering the foregoing, there are no limits or restrictions on the parties’ autonomy to select and appoint arbitrators.

The Arbitration Act provides a well laid out procedure for dealing with the default of the parties in appointing arbitrators or the tribunal. The Arbitration Act and the UNICITRAL Model Law under Section 12(3) and Article 11(3) respectively provide that if the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator, the arbitrator shall be appointed by an arbitral institution, such as the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Zambia Branch (CIArbZB). However, this procedure does not extend to multiparty arbitrations because the scope of the Arbitration Act does not encompass multiparty disputes.

The court has the power to intervene if there is still a deadlock between the parties or the two arbitrators with regard to the appointment after referring the issue to an arbitral institution; a request may be made to the court to take the necessary measures in accordance with Section 12 (4) and Article 11(4) and (5) of the Model Law. A decision by the High Court on the appointment of an arbitrator by the court is not subject to appeal. 

Additionally, the court can intervene regarding appointed arbitrators as stipulated in Article 14 of the Model Law, where there is failure to act without undue delay, and the party is aggrieved by the arbitrators’ conduct. The courts can be called upon to terminate an appointment of such an arbitrator by the aggrieved party.

An arbitrator’s appointment can be challenged under Zambian law in terms of Article 12(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on the following grounds:

• if circumstances exist that give rise to doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence; or
• if it transpires that the arbitrator does not possess the qualifications the parties had previously agreed on for the person to be appointed to resolve their dispute.

There are no specific and listed requirements for independence, impartiality and/or disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. However, an arbitrator under the provisions of Article 12 (1) and (2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law requires that when a person is approached in connection with their possible appointment as an arbitrator, they shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Arbitration (Code of Conduct and Standards) Regulations in Regulations 1, 2 and 3 provide further duties for an arbitrator to act fairly/impartially, and to disclose any interest or relationship which may affect their impartiality as well as any conflict of interests.

Further, an arbitrator, from the time of their appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such circumstances to the parties unless they have already been informed of them. Failure by an arbitrator to be independent, neutral and/or impartial during the proceedings and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest may result in a challenge of the arbitral award. A challenge will only arise if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, or if they do not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties.

Under Zambian law, Section 6 (2) of the Arbitration Act provides that the following disputes are non-arbitrable:

• agreements or matters that are contrary to public policy;
• a criminal matter or proceedings, except in so far as permitted by written law or unless the court grants leave for the matter or proceedings to be determined by arbitration;
• matrimonial or incidental matters, unless a court grants permission;
• matters related to the determination of paternity, maternity or parentage; and/or
• matters affecting the interests of minors or persons under legal incapacity, unless represented by a competent person.

In Zambia, UNCITRAL Model Law under Article 16(3) grants jurisdiction for an arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction where a party has challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Additionally, Zambia recognises the principle of competence-competence.

The courts in Zambia can only address issues of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal after the arbitral tribunal has made a determination on its jurisdiction. Thereafter, an aggrieved party may make an application to the High Court to challenge the arbitral tribunals ruling on jurisdiction. The court cannot own its own motion challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator without the parties moving the High Court to do so.

Additionally, Zambian law does not provide for the review of negative rulings on jurisdiction by the court. Therefore, in instances where the tribunal has determined that it does not have jurisdiction, the courts will not intervene.

There are two instances when an arbitrator’s jurisdiction can be challenged, namely during the arbitration proceedings and after the delivery of the arbitral award by the arbitral tribunal.

• The parties to the arbitration agreement are at liberty to agree on the timeline for challenging an arbitrator. However, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may challenge the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal within 15 days of the appointment of the arbitral tribunal. Thereafter, an aggrieved party has 30 days from the date of notice of ruling by the arbitral tribunal on its jurisdiction to apply to the High Court for determination of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. The decision of the High Court is final and not subject to further appeal.
• Further, an arbitrator’s jurisdiction can be challenged after the delivery of an award. However, this acts as a ground to set aside the award that has been delivered by the arbitral tribunal in accordance with Section 17 (2) of the Arbitration Act.

Arbitration proceedings in Zambia are not subject to judicial review. This is because arbitration is private, and party driven. In this jurisdiction judicial review is a public law remedy and only relates to decisions made by public officers such as judges. The standard for judicial review for questions relating to admissibility and jurisdiction is de novo.

In Zambia once it is brought to the courts՚ attention that the dispute before them is one that is the subject of arbitration by virtue of an arbitration agreement, the court will stay the proceedings before them and refer the matter to arbitration. In general, courts in Zambia do not entertain proceedings commenced before the courts in breach of an arbitration agreement, provided that the dispute is arbitrable and the arbitration agreement is valid and binding on the parties.

Zambian law has no provisions that allow an arbitral tribunal to assume jurisdiction over individuals or entities that are not parties or signatories to an arbitration agreement or contract. The hallmark of arbitration in Zambia is consent of the parties. However, a third party can consent to be bound by the arbitration agreement if they are of the view that the arbitration award might have an adverse effect on them.

An arbitral tribunal in Zambia under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act is permitted to award or grant preliminary or interim relief at the request of a party to the arbitration – unless the parties to the dispute have agreed otherwise. The said preliminary or interim relief, when granted, is binding.

Subject to agreement of the parties, the arbitral tribunal can, inter alia, award the following types of interim relief:

• interim injunction or other interim orders;
• orders that the parties make a deposit in respect of the fees, costs and expenses of the arbitration;
• orders to compel the attendance of a witness before the arbitral tribunal to give evidence or produce documents; and
• orders to detain, preserve or inspect any property or thing in the custody, possession or control of a party which is in issue in the arbitral proceedings and to authorise for any of those purposes any person to enter upon any land or any building in the possession of a party, or to authorise any sample to be taken or any observation to be made or experiment to be carried out which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence.

The courts do play a role in preliminary or interim relief arbitration proceedings. In accordance with Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, a party may, before or during arbitral proceedings, request from a court the following preliminary or interim relief:

• an order for the preservation, interim custody, sale or inspection of any goods that are the subject-matter of the dispute;
• an order securing the amount in dispute or the costs and expenses of the arbitral proceedings;
• an interim injunction or other interim order; or
• any other order to ensure that an award which may be made in the arbitral proceedings is not rendered ineffectual.

The courts in Zambia can provide executory assistance in terms of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act to arbitral proceedings which are being conducted in a foreign country.

The Arbitration Act does not provide for the emergency arbitrators; however, it allows a party to apply to the High Court for interim measures of protection in instances where an arbitral tribunal is yet to be constituted.

The Zambian Arbitration Act allows for the courts and/or the arbitral tribunal to make security for costs orders. It is up to the party to the dispute to make a request for this interim measure of protection.

The Arbitration Act does not prescribe any rules to be applied in arbitration proceedings. The choice of procedure remains for the parties to agree at the inception of the proceedings. The predominant choice would be the rules applicable, in the case of institutional arbitrations, by the institution under which the dispute is being arbitrated. For instance, most domestic arbitrations would ordinarily be administered under the Procedural Rules of the CiArb Zambia Branch Rules, 2022. Where the proceedings relate to an international dispute, the applicable rules would be those of the institution that the parties selected in the arbitration agreement.

Additionally, where parties agree to use the Lusaka International Arbitration Centre (LIAC), the LIAC Rules 2024 will apply. However, in the case of an ad hoc arbitration with no identifiable institution chosen by the parties, the procedural rules would be resolved by agreement during the course of the proceedings. Where the parties cannot agree, the Act empowers the tribunal to prescribe the rules.

The procedural steps in any arbitration proceedings are a matter of agreement by the parties, and the law does not impose these in any dispute whether international or domestic. However, the Arbitration Act makes provision instances such as default and, in that event, procedural steps are provided in the Arbitration Act. The statutory default procedural prescriptions relate to:

• the appointment of an arbitrator(s) including a substitute arbitrator(s);
• the powers of a tribunal to order interim and other measures;
• the default of a party and failure to comply with directions in the timetable for the exchange of pleadings or to appear and attend hearings;
• the procedure for recognition and challenge of awards; and
• the procedure for initiating actions to invoke the court’s supervisory/executory powers in relation to arbitration proceedings.

The Arbitration Act gives arbitrators the following powers:

• to order interim and other appropriate measures which include interim measures of protection, interim injunctions, orders compelling the attendance of a witness, etc;
• to appoint arbitrators in the event of failure to appoint, either by a party to the proceedings or where party-nominated arbitrators fail to agree the appointment of a third arbitrator;
• to grant leave for the revocation of a submission to arbitration for just cause; and
• to extend the time within which an award may be delivered, or to remit and set aside an award.

The Arbitration Act imposes duties on arbitrators which include:

• the duty to disclose circumstances that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence;
• the duty to render an impartial award which conforms with Zambian laws; and
• the form and content of an arbitral award which arbitrators must abide by in rendering an award.

The qualifications and requirements for legal representatives in Zambia relate only to representation before the courts. In that instance, a person must be admitted to the Zambian Bar. However, as regards representation for parties that are appearing in arbitration proceedings, Section 21 of the Arbitration Act does not prescribe any qualifications or requirements, and therefore the parties are free to appoint a representative as they please. This means a party can appoint a lawyer that is not qualified to appear before the courts in Zambia to act as counsel in arbitration proceedings without restriction. This applies to both domestic and international arbitrations.

The Arbitration Act does not have specific rules and procedures on the admission and collection of evidence at any stage of the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the parties are at liberty, at the inception of the arbitration process, to agree on the rules of evidence that will apply and those will dictate the pace of submission and collection of evidence. However, where the arbitration proceedings are subject to an arbitration institution, the rules and procedure of admission and collection of that arbitration institution will be applicable. This position applies in both international and domestic arbitration.

In Zambia, Article 19 of the UNCITRAL Model Law applies. The parties are expected to agree on the procedure, which includes the mode of receiving evidence. If the parties do not agree, the arbitral tribunal will determine the procedure in such manner as it considers appropriate. Further, in any other instance, the parties are at liberty to agree whether or not their submission should be subjected to strict rules of evidence, and that agreement will prevail for that hearing. The power conferred upon the arbitral tribunal includes the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence. However, where the submission is administered under the procedural rules of an arbitral institution, the applicable rules of evidence would ordinarily be prescribed in those procedural rules.

In terms of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitral tribunal may request executory assistance from the court to exercise its power to order production of documents or require the attendance of witnesses before the arbitral tribunal. The courts have the power to hand out orders directing witnesses to attend hearings and to give evidence in a submission. This assistance by the courts extends to non-parties as well as parties, and the orders to attend to give evidence are compulsory in nature, in the manner of a subpoena before a competent court.

According to the Arbitration (Code of Conduct and Standard) Regulations, an arbitrator shall not disclose to anyone who is not a party to the arbitral proceedings any information or documents that are exchanged over the course of the proceedings, except with the consent of the parties concerned or when ordered to do so by a court or otherwise required to do so by law, or when the information discloses an actual or potential threat to human life or national security. Regulations 25 and 26 of the Arbitration (Court Proceedings) Rules 2001 extend confidentiality to applications relating to arbitral proceedings and prescribe how custody of records, registers and documents are to be kept confidential by the court.

Further, parties to an arbitration agreement are deemed to commit not to publish, disclose or communicate any information relating to the arbitration proceedings or to an award made under those proceedings. This confidentiality obligation is subject to contrary agreement and the parties may, by mutual consent, indicate the instances where publication disclosure or communication is permissible. There are also exceptions under which disclosure may be permitted.

The Arbitration Act must also be read with the Arbitration (Court Proceedings) Rules, which extend confidentiality to all proceedings that may arise out of the arbitration proceedings; these Rules provide for the storage of records in a confidential registry with restricted access, and for all related court proceedings to be held in camera.

The Arbitration Act specifies formal requirements for any award to be enforceable. The award must:

• be signed by the arbitrator(s);
• state the reasons upon which it is based, unless the parties have agreed otherwise;
• indicate the date and place where it is made; and
• be delivered to all parties to the arbitration.

There are no time limits for delivery of the award, although the Arbitration (Code of Conduct and Standards) Regulations issued under the Arbitration Act require timely delivery of awards.

There are no limits on the types of remedies that can be awarded by the arbitral tribunal. Additionally, the damages are akin to those issued by the courts in this jurisdiction. Therefore, an arbitral tribunal may award remedies that are available to parties without limitation. However, the parties may, by consent of all parties to arbitral proceedings, restrict the remedies that would be available to the parties. 

In arbitration proceedings, parties are entitled to recover costs. The general practice or the rule of thumb is that costs follow the event, which means that costs are awarded in favour of the successful party. However, the arbitrator may reallocate costs for various reasons, including improper conduct resulting in unnecessary delays or instances where a party unreasonably refuses a settlement against it which is equal to or about the amount actually awarded.

Further, Section 16 (5) of the Arbitration Act provides that unless the parties agree otherwise, the costs and expenses of an arbitration, including the legal and other expenses of the parties, the fees and expenses of the arbitral tribunal, and other expenses related to the arbitration, shall be fixed and allocated by the arbitral tribunal in its award. Additionally, where the award is silent on the costs and expenses of the arbitration, each party shall bear its own costs.

A tribunal is also empowered to make awards of interest if the parties have not made any agreement to this effect and, particularly, to award the interest (simple or compounded) in accordance with the law applicable to the arbitration. Additionally, the Judgment Act, which caps the interest to the current lending rate as determined by the Bank of Zambia, is used as a guide.

In Zambia, the law does not provide any grounds on which the unsuccessful party can appeal an arbitral award. An arbitral award is final and the same cannot be subject of an appeal. The only recourse an unsuccessful party has is to set aside the arbitral award on the grounds set out in Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act, which are as follows:

• a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity; or the agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the laws of Zambia;
• the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present their case;
• the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by, or not falling within the terms of, the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decision on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the award that contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Act or the law of the country where the arbitration took place; and
• the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a court of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made, or if the court finds that:
1. the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Zambia;
2. the award is in conflict with public policy; and
3. the making of the award was induced or effected by fraud, corruption or misrepresentation.

However, a party dissatisfied with a judgment delivered by the High Court in respect of the application to set aside the award can appeal against the decision of the High Court judge to the Court of Appeal. A party dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal can make a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Zambia as a last recourse. However, appeal to the Supreme Court is not automatic, as leave has to be sought and the party seeking the appeal must demonstrate that the appeal brings forth issues or questions that are not settled at law. The appeal must bring in novel issues or changes regarding the law. The threshold for the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is very high.

Parties are not at liberty to exclude or expand the scope of appeal. Under Zambian law, appeals are hearings based on the record. The Arbitration Act does not provide an option to exclude or expand the scope of the appeal or challenge an appeal. Suffice to mention, however, that a party that is appealing against either a judgment of the High Court or Court of Appeal relating to setting aside the award is at liberty to either appeal against the whole judgment or only a portion of the judgment.

Under Zambian law, judicial review is not applicable to arbitration proceedings. Additionally, judicial review in this jurisdiction is a public law remedy which can only be invoked to challenge the decisions of public officers.

Zambia has ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which it adopted in 2000 and has domesticated the same into Zambian legislation by virtue of Section 31 of the Arbitration Act. The adoption of the Convention was a ratification on a non-reciprocal basis, meaning that foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in Zambia regardless of whether the awards were made in a party or non-party state.

In order for a successful party in arbitration proceedings to enforce the Award in Zambia, there is need to first make an application to register the award in the High Court of Zambia in accordance with the requirements provided in the Arbitration (Court Proceedings) Rules. Once the order registering the award has been granted by the High Court, a successful party must file with the High Court a notice of registration of the award and serve the same on the unsuccessful party. This order will specify a period within which an application can be made to set aside the registration, which is 90 days from the date of registration of the award. Thereafter, an applicant is at liberty to file a notice of registration and, once registered, serve it on the judgment debtor or the unsuccessful party on whom it can then be enforced.

Once a judgment debtor or unsuccessful party has successfully filed an application to set aside the award, the enforcement of the award is automatically stayed until the hearing and determination of the application to set aside the award. Further, an award that has been set aside by the courts of the jurisdiction where it was made, or which is undergoing set-aside proceedings, may not be registered, and its registration will be suspended pending the proceedings at the seat.

The defence of sovereign immunity can be raised after registration and as defence to enforcement of the award following registration.

In Zambia, the courts regularly recognise and enforce foreign arbitration awards by virtue of Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, which ratified and the domesticated the New York Convention which allows for the registration and enforcement of foreign awards.

Class action or group arbitrations are not provided for under Zambian law. However, there is nothing that prohibits group actions or class actions if the parties are party to the arbitration agreement and the dispute is the subject of the submission.

The ethical standards in arbitration practice reside in the Arbitration (Code of Ethics and Standards) Regulations 2007, which set out a code of conduct for arbitrators, resolving issues of:

• fairness and impartiality;
• disclosure;
• conflicts of interest;
• conduct of proceedings;
• settlement;
• confidentiality;
• impropriety;
• arbitrators’ qualifications;
• standards of decision-making and delays; and
• discipline for erring arbitrators.

The ethical standards for the lawyers appearing as counsel in arbitration proceedings are matters that are ordinarily dealt with under the regulatory framework for lawyers under the Legal Practitioners Act.

Zambia currently has no rules that regulate third-party funding in arbitration.

The Arbitration Act No 19 of 2000 does not provide specifically for consolidation of arbitral proceedings. However, this is possible by agreement of the parties, which means both parties to the arbitration proceedings would have to consent. Additionally, the rules applicable to a submission would therefore determine whether consolidation would be possible or not.

A non-party to an arbitration agreement cannot be bound by the terms and outcomes of an arbitration agreement, as the arbitration agreement is to be unenforceable against the non-party. However, if a non-party to an arbitration agreement consents to be bound by the terms of the arbitration clause, an agreement can be binding.