International arbitration in Zambia is still at a relatively early stage of development, with institutional infrastructure only recently being put in place to support cross-border arbitration. A 2025 International Arbitration Survey by the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, indicated that African parties continue to prefer established arbitral seats such as London, Paris, Singapore, Geneva and Dubai, largely due to institutional limitations within Africa and the perceived reliability of those centres. Cost is also a significant factor, with international arbitration often viewed as expensive and less accessible.

However, the commissioning of the Lusaka International Arbitration Centre (LIAC) on 5 April 2024 is expected to improve Zambia’s attractiveness as a regional seat of arbitration and to increase the use of international arbitration in practice.

Among domestic parties, arbitration is becoming more widely accepted, particularly in cross-border commercial transactions, although litigation remains the predominant dispute resolution mechanism, with negotiation often used informally as a first step due to its cost-effectiveness.

Where arbitration is chosen, it is most commonly incorporated at the contract drafting stage as the agreed dispute resolution mechanism. However, there is also a growing trend of statutory arbitration in Zambia, where legislation prescribes that certain disputes must be determined by arbitration, for example, disputes arising from a decision taken under the Public Procurement Act.

Zambia also serves as a seat of arbitration in some cases, and with LIAC’s establishment, its role as a regional arbitral hub is anticipated to grow. By contrast, the use of international arbitration in Zambia for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards remains relatively infrequent.

The industries that have experienced the most significant international arbitration activity in recent years are energy, mining and construction.

In the energy sector, Zambia has faced persistent power shortages linked to droughts, most recently associated with El Niño and climate change. One notable arbitration arose in December 2022 between Maamba Collieries Limited (a subsidiary of NAVA Limited, formerly NAVA Bharat Ventures Limited) and Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (ZESCO). The arbitral tribunal issued a consent award requiring ZESCO to settle an outstanding sum of approximately USD518 million.

The mining sector remains Zambia’s largest industry and a key recipient of foreign investment. With government plans to increase copper production to 3 million tonnes by 2031, there has been significant expansion of large-scale projects involving copper, cobalt and manganese, with major international companies engaged. Given the scale of investment, the complexity of concession and joint venture agreements, and the involvement of foreign investors, arbitration has become the preferred method of dispute resolution in the sector. Recent disputes have involved parties such as Konkola Copper Mines and Kansanshi Mining Limited.

The construction sector has arguably been the pioneer and leading driver of international arbitration in Zambia, particularly in disputes arising under FIDIC contracts (standard form contracts developed by the International Federation of Consulting Engineers and widely used in large-scale infrastructure projects). FIDIC contracts encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution and have been instrumental in embedding arbitration within the construction industry in Zambia. Their adoption has largely propelled the growth of arbitration in this sector. Furthermore, because most heavy construction contracts in Zambia are procured by the state, the Public Procurement Act mandates that disputes under such contracts be resolved by arbitration. This statutory framework, coupled with the international character of many contractors and financiers, has reinforced arbitration as the default mechanism for resolving high-value construction disputes in Zambia.

These sectors are more prone to international arbitration due to their cross-border investment structures, the high value of contracts, frequent state involvement, and investor preference for neutral dispute resolution outside the Zambian courts.

Until recently, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) has been the primary arbitration institution in Zambia. CIArb has served as the default forum owing to its established rules and procedures, as well as the availability of accredited practitioners within Zambia, which gave parties confidence in the neutrality and enforceability of awards.

In April 2024, LIAC was established in Lusaka to provide a dedicated forum for the administration of both international commercial and domestic arbitrations, as well as other alternative dispute resolution processes. Its establishment reflects the growing demand from the business community for a reputable local institution capable of ensuring efficient and speedy resolution of commercial disputes. Although still new, LIAC is expected to play an increasingly significant role as Zambia positions itself as a regional hub for arbitration.

Importantly, Zambian law imposes no restrictions on parties choosing international arbitration institutions. As such, parties to an international arbitration remain free to designate leading global arbitral bodies – such as the ICC International Court of Arbitration, the London Court of International Arbitration or others – as their administering institution.

In practice, this often occurs where one or more parties to the agreement is a large foreign entity. In such cases, it is also common for the parties to select a neutral foreign seat of arbitration to ensure neutrality and enforceability. At such a hearing, the parties will ordinarily adopt a foreign administering institution. A notable example of such an arrangement is the high-profile shareholders’ dispute between ZCCM-IH and Vedanta Resources concerning the Konkola Copper Mines, in which arbitration was seated outside Zambia.

In Zambia, there is currently no specialist court designated for arbitration-related disputes. Jurisdiction in such matters is vested in the High Court of Zambia as the court of first instance, with appeals lying to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court. On rare occasions where a dispute raises constitutional issues, it may be determined before the Constitutional Court.

Section 10 of Arbitration Act No. 19 of 2000 (the “Arbitration Act”) provides that where legal proceedings are brought before a court in a matter that is the subject of an arbitration agreement, the court shall stay the proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration – except where the agreement is found to be null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.

For purposes of the Act, Section 2 defines “court” as the High Court or any other court that may be designated by statutory instrument by the Chief Justice of Zambia. While no such designation has been made to date, this provision creates statutory authority for the Chief Justice to establish a specialist court or division of the High Court to hear arbitration matters in the future.

International arbitration in Zambia is governed by the Arbitration Act, which applies to both domestic and international arbitration. The preamble to the Act makes clear that it repeals and replaces the former Arbitration Act to provide for arbitration through the adoption, with modifications, of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985).

Section 8 of the Act regulates the application of the Model Law. Under Section 8(1), where the seat of arbitration is in Zambia, the Model Law applies in full, subject to the modifications contained in the Act. Section 8(2) provides that where the seat is outside Zambia, only Articles 8, 9, 35 and 36 apply, dealing principally with court assistance and the recognition and enforcement of awards.

Zambian courts have affirmed that the Act is, in substance, the Model Law with modifications tailored to the local legal system. In China Henan International Cooperation Group Company Limited v G & G Nationwide (Z) Limited (Supreme Court Appeal No. 199 of 2016) and Moba Hotel & Convention Centre Ltd v Lyco Business Solutions Ltd (Court of Appeal Appeal No. 66 of 2022), the courts emphasised that certain Articles of the Model Law are expressly replaced by provisions of the Act to ensure consistency with Zambia’s legal framework while maintaining international alignment.

It should be noted, however, that the Act has not been amended to incorporate the 2006 revisions to the Model Law. Zambia’s arbitration regime therefore continues to reflect the 1985 version, subject to domestic modification.

In addition, Zambia enacted the International Investment Disputes Act, which domestically incorporates the provisions of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID Convention”). This provides the framework for recognition and enforcement of awards rendered under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Beyond these instruments, certain sector-specific statutes provide for “statutory arbitration” in particular types of disputes. Notably, the Public Procurement Act mandates arbitration for disputes arising from a public procurement decision, while the more recent Minerals Regulation Commission Act of 2025 also includes arbitration as an option for resolution of disputes relating to mining and surface rights. These statutory frameworks reflect an emerging attitude in Zambia to have arbitration as a central mechanism for dispute resolution in Zambia’s key economic industries.

There have been no recent changes to the Arbitration Act, and no pending legislation is expected to alter the arbitration landscape.

Under Zambian law, an arbitration agreement is enforceable if it is in writing and clearly demonstrates the parties’ intention to submit disputes to arbitration. Section 9 of the Arbitration Act provides that an arbitration agreement may appear as a clause in a contract or as a separate agreement.

An agreement is deemed “in writing” if it is contained in a signed document or established through an exchange of correspondence, such as letters, telexes, telegrams or other means of communication, that provide a record of the agreement. The Act further recognises an arbitration agreement where its existence is alleged in pleadings (such as a statement of claim or defence) and not traversed by the opposing party.

Additionally, where a contract refers to another document containing an arbitration clause, that reference suffices to constitute a valid arbitration agreement, provided the main contract itself is in writing. Similarly, an agreement that incorporates written terms by reference is also treated as being in writing.

Once these formal requirements are satisfied, Zambian courts will generally uphold and enforce arbitration agreements, staying court proceedings and compelling parties to arbitrate their disputes.

Section 6(2) of the Arbitration Act expressly excludes certain subject matters from arbitration in Zambia. These include:

• agreements contrary to public policy;
• disputes which, under any law, may not be determined by arbitration;
• criminal matters or proceedings, unless permitted by law or with leave of court;
• matrimonial causes and related matters, unless the court grants leave;
• the determination of paternity, maternity or parentage; and
• matters affecting the interests of a minor or a person under legal incapacity, unless represented by a competent person.

The general approach of taken in Zambia is twofold. First, the courts assess whether the dispute falls within the categories expressly excluded under the Arbitration Act. Second, where no statutory exclusion applies, the courts examine the wording of the arbitration clause to determine whether the dispute is within its scope.

The Supreme Court has affirmed this approach in African Alliance Pioneer Master Fund v Vehicle Finance Limited (Appeal No. 21 of 2011), emphasising that arbitrability is governed by the law of the seat regardless of what the parties’ choice of procedure is. Similarly, in Audrey Nyambe v Total Zambia Limited (SCZ Appeal No. 29 of 2011), the Court underscored the importance of closely studying the wording of the arbitration clause when determining whether a dispute is amenable to arbitration.

More recently, the Court of Appeal in Cobham Capital Limited v African Inland Container Depot Zambia Limited (Appeal No. 270 of 2024) provided important guidance on the scope of the public policy exception. Recognising that the Arbitration Act does not define “public policy”, the Court adopted a narrow and deferential approach, holding that the public policy ground is confined to exceptional cases where an arbitral award is incompatible with the fundamental values and foundational legal principles of the Zambian legal system. The Court cautioned that setting-aside proceedings should not become disguised appeals on the merits and that mere errors of law or fact, or isolated breaches of legal rules, will not ordinarily amount to a violation of public policy. Rather, the award must, viewed as a whole, offend essential and widely recognised principles underpinning the legal order before judicial intervention is warranted.

The arbitrability of employment discrimination claims has recently been the subject of significant judicial consideration. In Hambani Ngwenya & Another v Lubambe Copper Mine Limited (2025 ZMSC 31), the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether claims for unfair discrimination under Section 5 of the Employment Code Act are capable of settlement by arbitration and whether such claims are excluded on public policy grounds notwithstanding Section 6 of the Arbitration Act. Earlier, the Court of Appeal in the said matter of Hambani Ngwenya & Another v Lubambe Copper Mine Limited (Application No. SP 49 of 2024) (2025 ZMCA 72) held that discrimination claims under the Employment Code Act are matters of public law and are therefore not amenable to arbitration. The Supreme Court’s decision, which is still pending, is expected to provide authoritative guidance on the arbitrability of statutory employment rights in Zambia.

Accordingly, arbitrability in Zambia is determined by reference to the statutory exclusions in the Arbitration Act, the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement, the law of the seat of arbitration and, where public policy is invoked, a narrowly construed incompatibility test that limits court intervention to exceptional circumstances.

Determination of Governing Law

The Zambian courts’ approach to determining the law governing an arbitration agreement is to give effect to what the parties expressly agreed.

In Sigma Financial Solutions and 3 Others v Chongo Kalela Sinyangwe (Appeal No. 4/2023), the Court of Appeal enforced a clause providing for UAE law and the exclusive jurisdiction of Dubai courts, holding that parties who have expressly chosen a foreign law and forum are bound by that choice unless another forum is clearly more appropriate under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Similarly, in Chansa Chipili, Powerflex (Z) Limited v Wellingtone Kanshimike and Wilson Kalumba (2012) Vol. 3 ZR 483, the Supreme Court emphasised that in cross-border commercial transactions with foreign jurisdiction clauses, the parties’ choice of law and forum is paramount, although Zambian courts may still examine whether local jurisdiction is justified by the circumstances.

The overall approach is therefore pro-enforcement: courts will usually uphold arbitration agreements and the governing law chosen by the parties, unless strong reasons exist to depart.

Enforcement

With respect to enforcement, Zambian courts are firmly aligned with Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, which obliges a court to stay proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement unless the agreement is null, void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. In Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited v ZCCM Investment Holdings Plc and Konkola Copper Mines Plc (CAZ/08/249/2019), the Court of Appeal affirmed that as a general rule, courts must refer a matter to arbitration where an arbitration clause exists, provided a party to the agreement requests such referral. Likewise, in Beza Consulting Inc. Limited v Bari Zambia Limited and Gidey Genremariam Egziabher (CAZ Appeal No. 171/2018), the Court clarified that Section 10 requires the ouster of the Court’s jurisdiction to be triggered by a request by a party to the arbitration agreement who is also a party to the proceedings.

The principle was emphasised by the Supreme Court in Konkola Copper Mines v NFC Africa Mining (SCZ Appeal No. 118 of 2006), where it was held that once an arbitration clause exists and a party applies for a stay under Section 10, the Court has no discretion but to refer the matter to arbitration.

Recent jurisprudence has reinforced the procedural requirements for enforcing arbitration agreements. In Cosmas Mulenga v Bright Jangazya (Appeal No. 262 of 2024) (2026 ZMCA), the Court of Appeal held that an arbitration clause does not automatically oust the Court’s jurisdiction. Rather, under Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, proceedings may only be stayed and referred to arbitration upon the application of a party. Similarly, in Roland Imperial Tobacco Company Limited v Bpifrance Assurance Export (2026 ZMCA 74), the Court reaffirmed that arbitration is consensual and that a court cannot, of its own motion, refer parties to arbitration or compel a non-party to an arbitration agreement to arbitrate. These decisions reinforce the procedural framework governing the enforcement of arbitration agreements in Zambia.

In practice, arbitration agreements are therefore readily enforced by Zambian courts, reflecting alignment with international arbitration standards and recognition of arbitration as an effective alternative method of dispute resolution.

Under Zambian law, an arbitration clause may still be valid even if the rest of the contract is found invalid. Article 16(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, as adopted into Zambian law through the Arbitration Act, provides for the doctrine of separability, stating that an arbitration clause forming part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. A decision by a court or tribunal that the contract is null and void does not automatically invalidate the arbitration clause. This means that Zambian courts apply the rule of separability, thereby upholding the arbitration clause and allowing arbitral proceedings to continue, even where the underlying agreement is challenged.

Under Zambian law, parties enjoy broad autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Section 12(2) of the Arbitration Act expressly allows parties to agree on the procedure for appointing arbitrators. The main limits are that arbitrators must be independent and impartial and must meet any qualifications agreed by the parties. Article 10 of the UNCITRAL Model Law in the First Schedule states that parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators and that failing such determination, the number of arbitrators shall be three. If these requirements are not met, the appointment may be challenged or set aside.

Where the parties’ chosen method of selecting arbitrators fails, the Arbitration Act provides a default framework. Under Section 12(3) of the Act, if the arbitration is with three arbitrators, each party appoints one arbitrator and the two arbitrators then appoint the third. If a party fails, or the two cannot agree, an arbitral institution makes the appointment. For sole arbitrator cases, if the parties cannot agree, the appointment is also made by an arbitral institution. In multiparty arbitrations, the Act does not prescribe a separate rule. In practice, the default provisions under Section 12(3) apply, with institutional or court assistance if the parties cannot agree.

Section 12(4) of the Arbitration Act empowers the court to intervene in the appointment process where a party fails to act, the parties or arbitrators are unable to agree, or a third party/institution fails to perform its role. The court’s decision under Section 12(5) is final and not subject to appeal. However, in exercising this power, the court must respect party autonomy and consider the agreed qualifications and the need for independence, impartiality and, where relevant, diversity of nationality as per Section 12(6).

In Zambia, the grounds and procedure for challenging or removing arbitrators are governed by Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. An arbitrator may be challenged where circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality, or if they do not possess the qualifications agreed upon by the parties. The procedure for raising a challenge may be agreed upon by the parties. If no procedure is set out, a party may submit a written statement of the grounds for challenge within 15 days of becoming aware of the relevant circumstances or of the arbitrator’s appointment. The mandate of an arbitrator may also be terminated where the arbitrator becomes unable to perform their functions or acts with undue delay. These provisions ensure that, while parties enjoy wide autonomy in the appointment of arbitrators, safeguards exist to maintain the integrity, independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal.

Under Zambian law, arbitrators are required to be independent and impartial. Article 12(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, incorporated as the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act, places an ongoing duty on arbitrators to disclose any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality. This duty applies from the moment a person is approached for appointment and subsists throughout the arbitral proceedings, and arbitrators must promptly inform the parties of any such circumstances unless the parties have already been made aware. In addition to statutory requirements, the LIAC Rules impose similar obligations. Under Articles 11(4) and (5) of the LIAC Rules, a nominated arbitrator must disclose in writing any facts or circumstances that could raise justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality both before appointment and continuously throughout the proceedings. These combined statutory and institutional safeguards ensure transparency, fairness and integrity in Zambian arbitration proceedings, reinforcing the parties’ confidence in the arbitral process.

Zambian law recognises the jurisprudential principle of “kompetenz-kompetenz”, which allows an arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. This principle is reflected in Article 16(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, incorporated as the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act. In practice, this means that arbitral tribunals in Zambia can determine their competence before any court intervention, although courts retain the power to review such decisions when enforcement or setting aside of awards is sought.

Under Zambian law, courts may intervene on issues of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction primarily when a party challenges a ruling by the tribunal confirming its jurisdiction. Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, as applied in Zambia, provides that such an application must typically be made to the court within 30 days of notice of the tribunal’s ruling. The decision of the court on these matters is final and not subject to appeal. Our courts exercise this power cautiously and generally exhibit reluctance to intervene, respecting the tribunal’s authority while ensuring that statutory and procedural requirements are observed.

Under Zambian law, a party may challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction once the arbitral tribunal has ruled on its competence. Where the tribunal issues a preliminary ruling affirming its jurisdiction, Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, as applied in Zambia, provides that any party may, within 30 days of receiving notice of that ruling, request the court designated under Article 6 to determine the matter. The court’s decision is final and not subject to appeal.

Crucially, while such a request is pending before the court, the arbitral tribunal is not obliged to suspend proceedings; it may continue with the arbitration and even render an award. This framework ensures that jurisdictional objections are dealt with expeditiously, while safeguarding the continuity and efficiency of the arbitral process.

When jurisdictional or admissibility questions are brought before the courts, judicial review is conducted on a fresh assessment (de novo). However, it is important to note that arbitration proceedings themselves do not fall within the scope of judicial review in Zambia.

As earlier discussed, Zambian courts consistently take a pro-arbitration approach when a party commences court proceedings in breach of a valid arbitration agreement. Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, together with the High Court Rules, empowers courts to stay proceedings and refer disputes to arbitration.

The Supreme Court has emphasised that once parties agree to arbitrate, the court’s jurisdiction is ousted unless the arbitration agreement is null, void, or incapable of being performed. Cases such as ZCCM Investment Holdings Plc v Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited and Konkola Copper Mines Plc and Savenda Management Services Limited v Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited reflect this general willingness to uphold arbitration agreements and encourage alternative dispute resolution.

The approach of our courts therefore is heavily pro-referral to arbitration where proceedings in court have been commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement.

Under Zambian law, an arbitral tribunal generally has no authority to assume jurisdiction over parties who are signatories to neither the arbitration agreement nor the underlying contract. The courts have consistently held that non-parties cannot be bound by the terms or outcomes of an arbitration agreement to which they are not privy. For example, in the case of Ody’s Oil Company Limited v The Attorney General and Constantinos James Papoustis, the court held that a third party cannot be compelled to participate in or be bound by arbitration proceedings in the absence of express consent or a legal provision permitting such jurisdiction. Consequently, tribunals’ jurisdiction is confined to the parties who have agreed to arbitrate. The rationale is that arbitration is a voluntary and consensual process.

The principle of privity was recently reaffirmed in Roland Imperial Tobacco Company Limited v Bpifrance Assurance Export (2026 ZMCA 74). The Court of Appeal held that an arbitration clause contained in a supply contract between the Appellant and Decoufle Sarl did not bind the Respondent, who, although an assignee of receivables under bills of exchange, was not a party to the supply contract. The Court emphasised that the assignment transferred only the receivables and did not extend to the contractual rights and obligations arising under the supply agreement, including the arbitration clause. Accordingly, the arbitration agreement was enforceable only between the parties to that agreement in the circumstances of the case. The decision reaffirms the principles of privity and consent in arbitration, confirming that a person who is not party to an arbitration agreement cannot ordinarily be compelled to arbitrate.

Under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, arbitral tribunals in Zambia are empowered to grant interim or preliminary relief and such relief is binding on the parties. The term “award” under the Act expressly includes interim and preliminary awards. This position was affirmed in the case of ZCCM v Konkola Copper Mines PLC (in Provisional Liquidation) and Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited (2019/HP/0761), which held that partial awards are generally final and binding. The types of interim relief available to a tribunal include granting interim injunctions, requiring parties to deposit funds to cover arbitration costs, compelling witnesses to attend or produce documents, ordering the discovery of documents, taking evidence out of jurisdiction, and detaining, preserving, inspecting or testing property relevant to the arbitration. These measures are designed to protect the subject matter of the dispute and ensure that the final award can be effectively enforced.

Power of Court to Grant Interim Relief

Under Zambian law, the courts play a limited but supportive role in relation to interim relief in arbitral proceedings. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act empowers a party to request from the court, before or during arbitration, measures for the preservation, custody, sale or inspection of goods in dispute, for securing the amount in dispute or costs, or for interim injunctions, or any other measure necessary to ensure that an arbitral award is not rendered ineffectual. The court may only grant such relief where the arbitral tribunal has not yet been appointed and urgency requires intervention, where the tribunal lacks competence to grant the relief, or where urgency makes it impracticable to seek the relief from the tribunal. Relief will not be granted where the tribunal, being competent, has already determined the application. In Zambia Logistics Limited v ARS Freight Company Limited, the High Court confirmed its powers under Section 11(2) to grant such measures. Furthermore, Section 14(4) allows a tribunal, or a party with the tribunal’s approval, to request executory assistance from the courts in relation to powers conferred on the tribunal, reinforcing the courts’ supportive role.

Zambian courts may, in exceptional circumstances, grant interim relief in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations. In U&M Mining Zambia Limited v Konkola Copper Mines plc [2013] EWHC 260 (Comm), it was recognised that while courts at the seat ordinarily exercise primary supervision, local courts may intervene where urgent measures are necessary for practical reasons and where intervention does not circumvent the arbitration agreement.

Appointment of Emergency Arbitrators

The Arbitration Act does not provide for emergency arbitrators. Urgent relief in Zambia must therefore be sought either from the arbitral tribunal once constituted or, where permitted, directly from the courts in accordance with the statutory framework.

Zambian law allows both courts and arbitral tribunals to order security for costs. Under Section 11(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act, the High Court can require a party to provide security for costs, while Section 14(2)(b) empowers the tribunal to do the same. This ensures that the party bringing or defending arbitration has sufficient means to cover the expenses of the proceedings, protecting the financial integrity of the arbitration process.

Arbitral procedure in Zambia is primarily governed by the Arbitration Act. In addition, specific rules provide further guidance, including the Arbitration (Court Proceedings) Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 65 of 2001 and the Arbitration (Code of Conduct and Standards) Regulations, Statutory Instrument No. 12 of 2007. These rules supplement the Act, particularly in relation to the conduct and standards expected of arbitrators and the procedural interface between arbitration and the courts. Parties may also adopt institutional rules, such as those of LIAC, where agreed.

Zambian law does not prescribe rigid procedural steps for arbitration. In practice, proceedings are generally initiated by the declaration of a dispute and the appointment of arbitrators in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement as read with Section 12 of the Arbitration Act on the appointment of arbitrators.

Beyond this, procedural matters relating to the conduct of the arbitral proceedings such as submission of claims and defences, hearings, document production and the conduct of evidence are largely determined by the parties’ agreement or, in its absence, by the tribunal. This flexible approach allows the tribunal to manage the proceedings efficiently while ensuring fairness. In practice, however, parties to arbitration in Zambia largely adopt the procedure and practice in the High Court.

Powers of Arbitrators

Under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators are vested with broad powers. These include the authority to determine their own jurisdiction, issue interim orders (including the power to compel parties to deposit fees and costs), ensure the attendance of witnesses, and detain, preserve or inspect property relevant to the dispute. Arbitrators also have the authority to manage arbitral proceedings by setting timelines and procedural rules where the parties have failed to agree. Additionally, the tribunal may determine the admissibility and weight of evidence, and decide whether to conduct oral hearings or resolve the dispute on written submissions alone.

Duties of Arbitrators

The Arbitration (Code of Conduct and Standards) Regulations impose duties requiring arbitrators to act fairly and impartially, disclose any circumstances affecting their independence or impartiality, avoid conflicts of interest, refrain from accepting gifts or hospitality from parties without consent, and ensure they possess the requisite qualifications and experience to conduct the arbitration. Arbitrators are also encouraged, where appropriate, to advise parties on the possibility of an amicable settlement.

Section 21 of the Arbitration Act provides that, unless the parties agree otherwise, a participant in arbitration may be represented by a legal practitioner or by any other person of their choice. This allows a party to be represented by a qualified legal practitioner, a foreign-trained legal professional, or any other individual the party considers appropriate.

The collection and submission of evidence in arbitration proceedings seated in Zambia is primarily governed by the Arbitration Act, which incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law and the agreement of the parties to arbitration.

Pleading Stage

Article 23 of the Model Law provides that each party shall set out the facts supporting its claim or defence and may either (i) refer to the documents and other evidence it intends to rely upon or (ii) produce such evidence together with its statement of claim or defence. In practice, parties to arbitration in Zambia often file a bundle of documents and witness statements alongside their pleadings. This reduces the need for extensive discovery procedures, which are commonly used in Zambian litigation proceedings. Arbitration practice in Zambia has a preference for procedural flexibility as opposed to the more rigid discovery rules applied in court proceedings.

Hearing Stage

Article 24 of the Model Law empowers the tribunal to determine whether the proceedings will be conducted on a documents-only basis or by way of oral hearings. Where oral hearings are held (which is the more common method), the practice generally mirrors High Court procedure where witness statements serve as evidence-in-chief, after which the witnesses may be subjected to cross-examination by the opposing party and re-examination by the party calling them. Expert evidence, if relied upon, must also be disclosed and furnished to the other side.

Privileged Evidence

Principles of privilege operate similar to court proceedings, with privileged communications, including attorney–client communications and “without prejudice” correspondence, remaining protected.

Default and Failure to Produce Evidence

Article 25 of the Model Law permits the tribunal to proceed with the arbitration and render an award on the basis of the evidence available if a party fails to appear or to produce documentary evidence.

Article 19 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides that the parties are free to agree on the rules of procedure, including the rules of evidence. Failing such agreement, the arbitral tribunal has discretion to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence.

In practice, although parties are not strictly bound by Zambian evidentiary rules, arbitral tribunals seated in Zambia commonly apply the same rules of evidence that govern domestic court proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise. This approach reflects prevailing arbitral practice in Zambia, where domestic evidentiary principles are frequently adopted as the framework for assessing evidence in arbitral proceedings.

The importance of party autonomy in this regard was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in SA Airlink (Pty) Limited v Zambia Skyways Limited and 5 Others (Appeal No. 10/2023). In setting aside the award, the Court held, among other things, that the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of the arbitration by determining matters outside the reference, notwithstanding that the parties had agreed at the preliminary conference that the arbitration would proceed under the strict rules of evidence. The decision underscores that while arbitral tribunals enjoy procedural flexibility, they remain bound by the procedural and evidential framework agreed by the parties, and a material departure from that framework may expose an award to judicial intervention.

Section 14(3) of the Arbitration Act confers on an arbitral tribunal the power to order the attendance of a witness or production of evidence from both parties and non-parties both within and outside the jurisdiction. However, arbitral tribunals seated in Zambia do not possess direct enforcement powers. Consequently, under Section 14(4), the tribunal may request executory assistance from the courts to enforce these compulsion orders via summons or subpoenas.

In Zambia, arbitration proceedings are treated as confidential, and as such, all the proceedings – including the existence of the arbitration, the documentation and the award – are confidential, unless the parties have consented to the disclosure of arbitration or the disclosure has been ordered by law or court order in the event that the information concerns an actual or potential threat to human life or national security.

It is also the general practice that once parties move the court seeking enforcement of an award, the arbitration award and on some occasions the arbitration proceedings may become part of the court record, thereby placing the arbitration into the public domain and limiting confidentiality to the extent of disclosures made in the enforcement of the award.

The Arbitration Act prescribes the formal requirements for rendering an arbitral award. Section 16(1) of the Act provides that an award must be made in writing and signed by the arbitrator or arbitrators, as the case may be. Where there is a panel of arbitrators, it is sufficient for the majority to sign the award, provided reasons are given for any omitted signature(s).

In addition, the award must state the reasons for the decision, as well as the date and place of arbitration. The Act is silent on any statutory time limit for the delivery of an arbitral award. In practice, however, the tribunal will usually indicate an expected timeframe for delivery, and unless otherwise agreed in the procedural timetable, the date of delivery is not a legal requirement.

Arbitral tribunals in Zambia have wide discretionary powers to grant remedies that fall within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement. These include monetary damages, injunctive relief, specific performance, rescission and rectification. However, there are certain limitations on the types of remedies that may be granted, and this discretion is subject to certain statutory and public policy limitations. In particular, arbitral tribunals may not grant the following remedies:

• an award that is in conflict with public policy, such as punitive damages;
• an award where the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration, for example, criminal sanctions, matrimonial causes, liquidation or other insolvency proceedings; more recently, the courts have guided that mortgage actions are not capable of arbitration in Zambia; or
• an award that falls outside the scope of the dispute referred to the tribunal because of the consensual nature of arbitration proceedings.

The Zambian courts have also clarified the limits of arbitral remedies in the context of mortgage enforcement. In Metalco Industries Company Ltd & Others v First National Bank Zambia Ltd & Another (Appeal No. 222 of 2021) (2022 ZMCA 16), the Court of Appeal held that although mortgage disputes are not excluded from arbitration under the Arbitration Act, an arbitration clause contained in a facility agreement does not automatically extend to separate mortgage deeds or guarantees. The Court held that the mortgage enforcement proceedings arose under the security documents, which contained no arbitration agreement, and therefore could not be referred to arbitration.

The same approach was adopted in Nyiombo Investments Limited & Others v Standard Chartered Bank of Zambia Plc (Appeal No. 274 of 2024) (2026 ZMCA). The Court held that an arbitration clause contained in a collateral Field Warehousing and Storage Agreement did not extend to disputes concerning the enforcement of mortgages created under separate banking and security documents. The Court emphasised that the applicability of an arbitration agreement depends on the true nature of the dispute and the agreement from which it arises. These decisions confirm that arbitration is founded on consent and that the availability of arbitral remedies depends upon the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Recovery of Legal Costs

Where there is no agreement between the parties on costs, the general position in Zambian arbitration proceedings is that, unless the award expressly provides otherwise, each party bears its own legal costs. The default position therefore departs from the principle that “costs follow the event”. In practice, however, arbitral tribunals typically exercise their discretion to award costs, and such awards usually follow the “costs follow the event” approach rather than legal costs being shared.

This position does not extend to the fees of the arbitral tribunal, which are subject to a cost-sharing approach. Section 16(5)(b) of the Arbitration Act provides that arbitral tribunal fees are to be shared equally between the parties.

Recovery of Interest

A party to an arbitration seated in Zambia may recover interest on sums awarded. Section 16(6) of the Arbitration Act provides that, in an international arbitration, the tribunal may award simple or compound interest on the whole or part of any sum, for such period (which usually includes the pre-award period and post-award period until settlement) and at such rate as it considers appropriate, subject to party agreement. However, given that Zambian law generally allows compound interest only where the parties expressly agree to it, and arbitration is a consensual process, the prevailing practice is for tribunals to award simple interest at the pleaded rate or such other rate as the tribunal deems appropriate in the circumstances.

Arbitral awards are not subject to appeal in Zambia. Instead, parties may seek recourse by applying to the High Court to set aside an award on prescribed grounds. The grounds for setting aside are set out under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act and include:

• a party to the arbitration agreement was under incapacity;
• the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law to which the parties have subjected it;
• procedural irregularities, such as (a) the applicant was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the proceedings or (b) the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or the law;
• the award, or part of it, deals with matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• the award is not yet binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent court in Zambia; and
• the award is in conflict with Zambia’s public policy, or was obtained through fraud, corruption or misrepresentation.

Procedure for Challenging an Award

An application to set aside an arbitral award must be made within three months from the date on which the award was received. However, Article 33 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides that an award cannot be set aside where an application for correction or interpretation of the award has been made.

In Zambia, parties cannot agree to exclude any statutory ground for setting aside an arbitral award or to expand those grounds. The Arbitration Act prescribes the method and grounds for challenging an award in mandatory terms. While arbitration is a consensual process, its framework remains subject to public policy considerations. Accordingly, parties cannot contract out of or extend beyond the statutory framework, as doing so would be contrary to public policy.

The standard of judicial review in Zambia is deferential rather than de novo. Although not expressly set out in the Arbitration Act, Zambian case law demonstrates a consistent judicial approach of restraint, with the courts declining to review the merits of an arbitral award or to re-hear the dispute. The courts’ supervisory role is confined to ensuring that the award falls within the statutory framework and to reviewing applications brought on the prescribed grounds for setting aside. The courts have no discretion to re-examine the merits of the arbitration under any circumstances in the Zambian jurisdiction.

Zambia is a ratified signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). The Convention was domesticated through its incorporation into the Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act pursuant to Part IV of the Act, and this adoption was done without reservation.

Procedure for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Zambia

In Zambia, the enforcement of an arbitral award begins with registration of the award in the courts. This requires filing an originating summons accompanied by an affidavit exhibiting:

• a duly authenticated original award or a certified copy; and
• an authenticated or certified copy of the arbitration agreement.

Authentication is generally performed by a notary public at the seat of arbitration. Registration is necessary because arbitral tribunals in Zambia do not have the machinery to enforce or execute awards directly.

For international arbitrations seated in Zambia, the rules for recognition and enforcement under Article 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law apply, whereas the procedures under the New York Convention typically govern the registration and enforcement of foreign awards.

Where an award or arbitration agreement is in a foreign language, a certified English translation must also be supplied to the court before registration.

Foreign Award Subject of Setting-Aside Proceedings

Zambian courts will not enforce or recognise an award that is not binding in the jurisdiction of the arbitral seat, such as where it has been set aside or its application has been suspended. Where proceedings to set aside a foreign arbitral award are ongoing at the seat of arbitration, Zambian courts may stay enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of those proceedings. This power to stay is discretionary and determined on a case-by-case basis.

Plea of Sovereign Immunity in Enforcement

Zambia does not have legislation directly addressing sovereign immunity in the context of arbitral award enforcement. However, the principle is widely recognised in public international law and may be invoked as a defence. Its presence in Zambian law is indirectly reflected in statutes such as the Diplomatic Immunities Act, which recognises the general concept of sovereign immunity, though not directly applicable to states themselves.

The modern approach to sovereign immunity is that it is not absolute: where the dispute arises from commercial activities rather than sovereign acts, a state cannot claim immunity. In Zambia, the Zambian state enjoys specific protection from enforcement actions under the State Proceedings Act, which excludes enforcement of awards against it.

The courts in Zambia have adopted a co-operative approach towards the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, subject to public policy considerations. Enforcement will be refused on public policy grounds where an award is found to be intolerable to Zambia’s public policy or contrary to fundamental notions of justice. This was the approach emphasised in the case of Tiger Limited v Engen Petroleum (Z) Limited. It is uncommon for Zambian courts to consider foreign public policy in determining the enforceability of an award where the arbitration was seated domestically.

The law in Zambia is silent on the arbitrability of class actions. In the absence of an express prohibition or group arbitration framework, it could be argued that class actions are arbitrable. However, the arbitration framework in Zambia – and international practice – rests on party consent as the foundation of the process. Class or group arbitrations do not ordinarily anticipate prior consensus of all affected parties before proceedings are commenced. For this reason, it is unlikely that a class arbitration could proceed in Zambia without facing significant hurdles in satisfying the requirement of party consent.

The professional and ethical standards applicable to arbitrators in Zambia are set out in the Arbitration (Code of Conduct and Standards) Regulations 2000. These require arbitrators to observe the principles of fairness, impartiality, disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, and confidentiality.

In arbitrations seated in Zambia, legal practitioners admitted to the Zambian Bar must comply with the standards of professional conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners Act. Where foreign counsel appear in international arbitrations seated in Zambia, they are not subject to Zambian ethical and professional standards of conduct, but are ordinarily regulated by the professional rules of their home jurisdiction.

In Zambia, there are currently no restrictions or regulations governing third-party funding. In practice, the use of third-party funding in arbitration remains rare, similar to use of litigation funding in this jurisdiction. The research conducted in preparation of this Guide reveals that third-party funding is yet to be tested before the courts, but in the absence of an express prohibition, there is essentially no legal barrier to its development in the market.

The current rules of practice in arbitral proceedings, as well as the rules of court in Zambia, do not expressly provide for the consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings. As the legal framework is currently silent on this matter, it is unclear under what circumstances, if any, separate arbitrations could be consolidated.

In Zambia, the principle of consent underpins arbitration, and accordingly, third parties generally cannot be bound by an arbitration agreement or arbitral award. This reflects the doctrine of privity, under which only parties to an agreement are legally obligated by its terms. The Supreme Court confirmed this position in Vedanta Resources Holding Ltd v ZCCM Investments Plc and Konkola Copper Mines Plc. This rule applies equally to foreign third parties, and Zambian courts do not have the power to compel a third party to arbitrate or to be bound by an arbitration agreement to which they are not a party. While exceptions to the doctrine of privity could in theory apply to bind third parties, such scenarios have not yet been tested in Zambia.

The Supreme Court of Zambia reinforced this principle in SA Airlink (Pty) Limited v Zambia Skyways Limited and 5 Others, where it held that only parties to an arbitration agreement may claim the benefits arising from arbitral proceedings. The Court set aside the award, in part, because the arbitrator had made an award in favour of a non-party to the arbitration agreement. The Court held that, to the extent the award purported to confer rights on non-parties, it offended the principle of party consent, exceeded the scope of the arbitral reference and was contrary to public policy, rendering it liable to be set aside.

The same principle was recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Roland Imperial Tobacco Company Limited v Bpifrance Assurance Export (2026 ZMCA 74). The Court held that an assignee of receivables under bills of exchange was not bound by the arbitration clause contained in the underlying supply contract because the assignment transferred only the receivables and not the contractual rights and obligations under that agreement, including the arbitration clause. The decision confirms that a person who is not party to an arbitration agreement cannot ordinarily be compelled to arbitrate, irrespective of whether that person is a domestic or foreign third party.

While recognised exceptions to the doctrine of privity may, in principle, arise in appropriate circumstances, such as through assignment, agency or succession, these issues have not yet been fully developed in Zambian arbitration jurisprudence.