The Evolving Landscape of Arbitration in Zambia: Trends, Developments and the Path to a Regional Hub

Introduction

The year 2025 has been monumental for arbitration in Zambia. Three major milestones stand out.

First, Zambia hosted its first ever Lusaka Arbitration Week, drawing together a diverse range of stakeholders including legal practitioners, judges, academics, business leaders, senior government officials, representatives of foreign governments, heads of arbitral institutions from within and outside Zambia, engineers, project managers, in-house counsel, financial experts, diplomats, construction professionals and representatives of professional bodies.

Second, the process of amending the Arbitration Act, which is now over 25 years old, has reached advanced stages, promising to modernise the legislative framework and align it with international best practice.

Finally, there is a deliberate policy shift by the Zambian government to actively encourage ministries, agencies and parastatals to include arbitration clauses in most standard contracts, reflecting a firm national commitment to alternative dispute resolution.

These developments are not occurring in isolation but form part of a broader evolution of Zambia’s dispute resolution framework. They mirror global trends that recognise arbitration as a vital mechanism for fostering investor confidence and facilitating cross-border commerce.

This article serves as a comprehensive and expert-level review of the Zambian arbitration landscape, tracing its development from its foundational legal roots to its present state, replete with institutional advancements and judicial precedents. The analysis is geared towards providing strategic information for international investors and legal practitioners seeking to understand the efficacy and reliability of arbitration in the country.

The Foundational Legal and Regulatory Framework

The Arbitration Act: the cornerstone of Zambian arbitration law

The cornerstone of Zambian arbitration law is the Arbitration Act No 19 of 2000 (the “Arbitration Act”, or the “Act”). This legislation provides a comprehensive framework for both domestic and international arbitration proceedings. The Act mandates that an arbitration agreement must be in writing, which can be a clause within a larger contract or a separate agreement. This writing requirement is fulfilled through a document signed by the parties, an exchange of telecommunications that provides a record of the agreement, or an exchange of statements of claim and defence where the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.

A critical feature of the Act is its strong alignment with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The Zambian Arbitration Act is not merely inspired by the Model Law; it is, in effect, a domestication of it, with specific sections varying or modifying the Model Law’s application where necessary. This intentional alignment provides a robust and predictable legal basis for arbitration, which is a key driver for attracting international commercial activity. The legislation also explicitly applies certain UNCITRAL Model Law articles – such as those governing interim measures and the recognition and enforcement of awards – to international arbitration proceedings even when the seat is outside Zambia.

The Act is deliberately designed to promote party autonomy and minimise judicial intervention. Courts are generally not involved in the arbitral process unless a specific issue arises, such as the appointment of arbitrators when parties fail to agree, the setting-aside of an award on limited grounds, or the enforcement of an award. This minimal intervention is a deliberate policy choice to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the arbitration process. The law reinforces the freedom of parties to arbitrate as opposed to being forced into litigation, as affirmed in case law such as Leonard Ridge Safaris Limited v Zambia Wildlife Authority (2008) ZR 97.

International conventions and their domestic implementation

Zambia’s commitment to international dispute resolution is demonstrated by its adherence to key international conventions. The country acceded to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on 14 March 2002. This is a crucial element of its arbitration framework, as the Arbitration Act domestically implements this Convention, ensuring that foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforceable within Zambia. The Convention provides a clear mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of awards, facilitating international commercial activity by ensuring that a successful arbitral award is not a mere paper victory.

The country’s engagement with international dispute resolution predates its modern commercial arbitration law. Zambia gave effect to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”) through the Investment Disputes Convention Act of 1970. This long-standing policy of providing a legal framework for resolving investment-related disputes demonstrates a consistent and enduring commitment to creating a stable environment for foreign investors.

The deliberate alignment of the Arbitration Act with the globally recognised UNCITRAL Model Law and the domestication of the New York Convention is a strategic choice designed to foster foreign investment. By mirroring a globally accepted standard, Zambia signals to the international community that its legal system is transparent, predictable and reliable. Furthermore, the ability to easily enforce a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention provides a critical layer of security for foreign investors, mitigating the risk of non-compliance by local parties. This reduces reliance on local courts for dispute resolution and ensures that a foreign investor’s contractual rights can be enforced. A stable and unchanging framework is often as valuable to investors and businesses as a modern one, as it reduces uncertainty and reinforces confidence in the legal system.

The following provides a summary of the key legislative and international instruments that form the foundation of Zambia’s arbitration framework.

The Arbitration Act, 2000

• Significance – primary domestic law governing domestic and international arbitration.
• Relationship to Zambian law – directly enacted.

The UNCITRAL Model Law

• Significance – international best practices framework for commercial arbitration.
• Relationship to Zambian law – largely mirrored by the Arbitration Act, 2000.

The New York Convention, 1958

• Significance – facilitates the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
• Relationship to Zambian law – domestically implemented by the Arbitration Act, 2000.

The Investment Disputes Convention, 1970

• Significance – provides a framework for settling investment disputes with the State.
• Relationship to Zambian law – enacted by a separate law (the Investment Disputes Convention Act).

Key Trends and Sector-Specific Developments

The growth of arbitration: a preferred alternative to litigation

Arbitration has gained significant traction as a preferred method of dispute resolution in Zambia, particularly in the commercial and investment sectors. This is attributed to its efficiency, confidentiality and flexibility, which are critical for preserving business relationships, especially in ongoing ventures. The process can be tailored to the parties’ specific needs, allowing them to agree on procedural rules, venue and language.

Despite these theoretical advantages, the practical application of arbitration in Zambia has faced criticism. Studies reveal that arbitration can be time-consuming and costly, which runs contrary to its stated benefits. The enforcement of awards, while legally sound, can also be a lengthy process, sometimes taking months, especially if the opposing party resists. The dual narrative of arbitration being a “preferred” method while simultaneously being criticised as “costly” and “time-consuming” suggests a gap between its conceptual benefits and its practical application. This indicates that, while the legal demand for arbitration is strong, the infrastructure to support a swift and efficient process may still be maturing.

Arbitration in the commercial and investment sectors

The use of arbitration is not a uniform trend across all sectors but is concentrated in specific, high-value industries. It is particularly prevalent in the dominant copper mining industry, with the Mines and Minerals Development Act requiring many mining-related disputes to be settled through this method. Research also indicates that arbitration has become the “main contractual means of dispute resolution” in the Zambian construction industry. The preference for arbitration in these sectors is driven by the need for specialised expertise, confidentiality and the ability to choose a neutral forum and arbitrators. The reported issues of cost and time suggest that the infrastructure – including the availability of trained practitioners and efficient case management – may not yet be fully developed.

Zambia’s government has been actively reforming its investment legal framework with support from the World Bank Group through the ACP Business Friendly Program. These reforms, aimed at improving the country’s attractiveness to foreign investors, include enhancing transparency by publishing a “negative list” of sectors and activities restricted for foreign direct investment. A significant development is the finalisation of a new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT) that includes updated dispute settlement provisions and, for the first time, a dispute prevention mechanism. This focus on dispute prevention represents a sophisticated, second-order evolution in investment policy. Instead of simply providing a forum for resolving conflicts, Zambia is moving towards proactively identifying and addressing investor grievances before they escalate to formal arbitration. This signals a higher level of maturity in its approach to foreign investment, aiming to avoid costly and time-consuming international litigation entirely.

The Institutional and Professional Landscape

The Lusaka International Arbitration Centre

The creation of the Lusaka International Arbitration Centre (LIAC) in 2024 is a landmark development in Zambia’s arbitration landscape, signifying a shift from a purely legislative framework to a functional, service-oriented one. Its establishment is a direct response to the “growing need for efficient arbitration services” and a strategic initiative to make Zambia a “regional and international hub for international dispute resolution”.

LIAC provides a world-class forum for both domestic and international commercial disputes. It has developed its own set of rules, which are “aligned with international best practices”, and provides model arbitration clauses for parties to incorporate into their agreements. The centre also maintains a diverse panel of highly qualified and experienced arbitrators, specialising in various areas of law and industry. There are clearly defined criteria for admission to its Domestic and International Panels. The fast-track arbitration rules are specifically designed to deliver “results promptly and efficiently”, directly addressing the aforementioned criticisms of arbitration being “long and costly”.

Within LIAC’s institutional framework, a LIAC court now reviews draft awards for compliance in form and substance before publication, an emerging quality control measure that supports consistency and enforceability without interfering with the tribunal’s decisional independence.

The following details the admission criteria for the LIAC Panel of Arbitrators.

Educational/professional licence

• Domestic Panel – appropriate to the applicant’s field of expertise.
• International Panel – appropriate to the applicant’s field of expertise.

Post-qualification experience

• Domestic Panel – at least five years.
• International Panel – at least ten years or senior-level business experience.

Professional body membership

• Domestic Panel – full Membership of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) or a comparable institute.
• International Panel – Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb) or a comparable institute.

Arbitrator/counsel experience

• Domestic Panel – in at least two arbitration cases.
• International Panel – in at least five arbitration cases.

Other

• Domestic Panel – membership in a professional association(s).
• International Panel – membership in a professional association(s).

Institutions such as LIAC are increasingly enabling African disputes – including those arising in Zambia – to be resolved within the continent, promoting cost-effective context-sensitive and accessible justice, and reducing dependence on traditional offshore arbitration hubs such as London, Paris, Singapore, Geneva and Dubai.

The CIArb Zambia Branch

The CIArb Zambia Branch, established in 2011, plays a vital role in the professionalisation of alternative dispute resolution in the country. It is an arbitral institution that provides education and training for arbitrators, mediators and adjudicators. Its activities include offering training courses, appointing alternative dispute resolution professionals and promoting ethical conduct.

The CIArb Zambia Branch works closely with academic institutions and other professional bodies, serving as a global hub for practitioners, policymakers and academics. It provides a developmental pathway for practitioners, with various grades of membership, including a Young Member’s Group for those aged 40 and below. The activities of the CIArb Zambia Branch and the strict admission criteria for the LIAC Panel of Arbitrators demonstrate a clear trend towards professionalising the practice of arbitration.

The CIArb and the use of artificial intelligence

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in arbitration is emerging in Zambia as a tool to improve efficiency and lower costs. Although its adoption is still informal and unquantified, Zambia’s link to the CIArb enables alignment with global standards such as the CIArb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025). Practitioners are beginning to apply AI in areas such as research, document review and drafting, but concerns around bias, confidentiality and procedural fairness highlight the need for strong human oversight. As Zambia’s arbitration system continues to be modernised, ethical AI integration will be essential to uphold the credibility and integrity of the arbitral process.

Judicial Interaction and the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

The principle of minimal judicial intervention

Zambian law and judicial practice generally uphold the principle of minimal judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings. The court’s role is primarily supervisory, intervening only to ensure procedural fairness and enforce awards. A court is required to stay legal proceedings and refer a matter to arbitration if a valid arbitration agreement exists, unless it finds the agreement to be “null and void”. This is a fundamental aspect of the country’s arbitration policy.

Grounds for setting aside an award

Recourse to a court to set aside an arbitral award is limited to specific, enumerated grounds. These include:

• the subject matter not being arbitrable under Zambian law;
• the award being in conflict with public policy; or
• the award being induced by fraud, corruption or misrepresentation.

Parties cannot exclude the right to challenge an award on these grounds.

The following provides a detailed overview of the grounds for challenging (ie, refusing enforcement of or setting aside) an arbitral award under Zambian law.

Lack of jurisdiction

• Explanation – the tribunal exceeded its authority or the subject matter was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
• Relevant law/case – the Arbitration Act, 2000, Section 17(2)(b)(ii).

Violation of public policy

• Explanation – the award conflicts with fundamental principles of law and justice.
• Relevant law/case – the Arbitration Act, 2000, Sections 17(2)(b)(ii) and 19(1)(b)(ii).

Procedural irregularities

• Explanation – lack of proper notice or the inability of a party to present its case.
• Relevant law/case – the Arbitration Act, 2000, Section 17(2)(a)(iv).

Fraud, corruption or misrepresentation

• Explanation – the award was procured by illicit means.
• Relevant law/case – the Arbitration Act, 2000, Section 19(1)(c).

Subject matter not arbitrable

• Explanation – the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Zambian law (eg, criminal or matrimonial matters).
• Relevant law/case – the Arbitration Act, 2000, Section 6 & 19(1)(a).

Case law analysis on enforcement

Zambian courts have consistently enforced arbitral awards in line with well-established arbitration principles, emphasising finality and respect for party autonomy. Ideally, once an award is made, enforcement should be straightforward and challenges rare.

However, difficulties may arise where enforcement is sought against third parties who were not signatories to the arbitration agreement. The recent Supreme Court decision in Star Drilling and Exploration Limited v National Technologies Limited and Others (Appeal No 7 of 2024) illustrates this complexity. The Court examined whether the corporate veil could be pierced at the enforcement stage to make shareholders and directors personally liable for an arbitral debt when they were not parties to the arbitration. The High Court had pierced the veil to prevent the award from becoming a paper victory, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision. On final appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that arbitral awards are enforceable only against parties to the arbitration and that veil-piercing constitutes a distinct cause of action requiring its own proceedings where fraud or abuse of corporate personality is alleged.

One recurring theme in Zambia’s arbitration jurisprudence has been the frequent use – some would say, misuse – of the “public policy” ground to set aside arbitral awards under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. As “public policy” is a broad and often subjective concept, parties tend to invoke it as a remedy of last resort to reopen the merits of a case or find an “ingenious” reason to have an award set aside. The 2025 appellate decisions demonstrate that the courts have increasingly frowned upon this practice. In Road Development Agency v Stefanutti Stocks and Consolidated Contractors Company Joint Venture (Appeal No 31 of 2024), an attempt to set aside an award on the basis that it was “contrary to commercial and construction sense” failed. The Court of Appeal reiterated that public policy is not a broad ground of appeal and that judicial intervention is reserved for instances where an award fundamentally offends the nation’s sense of justice and morality. However, in Hambani Ngwenya and Another v Lubambe Copper Mine Limited (Appeal No 91 of 2023), the Court set aside an employment-related award on grounds that equal pay and discrimination claims under the Employment Code Act involve non-arbitrable statutory rights and matters of public policy. This decision has sparked debate among practitioners as to whether Zambia’s position aligns with international best practice, which generally favours a narrow construction of public policy and permits arbitration of employment-related claims where parties have freely consented.

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards

Foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in Zambia by “mere registration” with the High Court. The process is relatively straightforward, requiring the party to provide the original award and the arbitration agreement. Once registered, the award can be enforced as if it were a judgment of the Zambian High Court, allowing the winning party to use State machinery, such as the Sheriff’s Office, to enforce the award. Enforcement proceedings typically take between three and 12 months.

While the process is intended to be relatively straightforward, in practice it may take several months, especially where the losing party contests enforcement. Additionally, enforcement against the State may encounter restrictions under procedural or immunities statutes (eg, the State Proceedings Act), and Zambian courts have been cautious in piercing the corporate veil to bind non-parties, reflecting the doctrine that arbitration agreements generally bind only expressly consenting parties. This limitation on third-party liability is grounded in the principle that arbitration agreements are contractual in nature and binding only on the parties who have expressly consented to them. This presents a challenge that necessitates careful drafting of arbitration clauses, especially in contexts involving complex corporate structures.

Challenges and the Path Forward

Persistent impediments to widespread adoption

Despite a robust legal framework, significant challenges persist in the practical application of arbitration in Zambia. Research in the construction industry has revealed that users perceive arbitration as taking “a long time” and being “costly”, with awards often being slow to enforce.

Legal scholars have also pointed to structural limitations; some have criticised the Arbitration Act’s strong connection to the court system, arguing that this “unqualified attachment” can dilute arbitration’s autonomy and lead to judicial congestion. The statutory insistence on arbitration agreements being strictly in writing is also criticised in academic circles as overly rigid and vulnerable to avoidance by parties who withhold formal signing.

Moreover, empirical studies identify a deficiency in stakeholder awareness and specialist alternative dispute resolution training in sectors such as construction, citing as ongoing barriers a lack of standardised procedures, under-regulation of practitioners, and limited familiarity with alternative dispute resolution methods.

Opportunities for Growth

The challenges facing arbitration in Zambia are not a result of a weak legal foundation but rather of a maturity gap in its institutional and human resource infrastructure. The legal framework is modern and aligned with international standards. The fact that a significant portion of commercial disputes are already using arbitration suggests that the demand is there. The root causes of the “costly” and “long” problems, therefore, must lie in the practical execution of the process, insufficient professional capacity, procedural inefficiencies and a lack of institutional support.

The establishment of LIAC, with its focus on streamlined, fast-track processes and its model rules, offers a direct solution to the issues of cost and duration. Continued institutional strengthening and promotion of these services are vital. Legal reforms could also address the identified procedural challenges, such as exploring the possibility of enforcing non-written arbitration agreements and further clarifying the relationship between the arbitral process and the courts to reduce procedural bottlenecks. A sustained focus on professional development and training, led by institutions such as the CIArb Zambia Branch, is crucial for building a large pool of competent and ethical arbitrators and practitioners. By directly targeting these root causes, Zambia is demonstrating a clear, ongoing trend towards closing this maturity gap.

Conclusion

The Zambian arbitration landscape is in a dynamic state of evolution, characterised by a robust legal framework, proactive institutional development and a generally supportive judiciary. The Arbitration Act, modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, provides a solid foundation for commercial and investment dispute resolution. The country’s accession to the New York Convention and the establishment of local institutions such as LIAC and the CIArb Zambia Branch signify a strategic commitment to creating a self-sustaining and credible arbitration ecosystem.

While challenges remain concerning the cost and duration of proceedings and the legal clarity on certain procedural matters, the trajectory is clear: Zambia is committed to enhancing its role as a stable and attractive forum for dispute resolution. The government’s recent reforms to its investment framework and the new focus on dispute prevention further highlight a sophisticated and forward-looking approach to fostering a business-friendly environment. The country’s ongoing efforts to streamline processes and build professional capacity position it favourably to realise its ambition of becoming a regional hub for international arbitration.