ZAMBIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Luckson Mwamba, Katongo Bwalya and Mumba Mwila, Mwamba & Milan Advocates
Article 16 (1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, incorpo - rated 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. 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention 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 applica - tion 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. 5.3 Timing of Challenge Under Zambian law, a party may challenge the tribu - nal’s jurisdiction once the arbitral tribunal has ruled on its competence. Where the tribunal issues a pre - liminary 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 receiv - ing 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. 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/Admissibility When jurisdictional or admissibility questions are brought before the courts, judicial review is conduct - ed on a fresh assessment (de novo). However, it is important to note that arbitration proceedings them -
selves do not fall within the scope of judicial review in Zambia. 5.5 Breach of Arbitration Agreement As earlier discussed, Zambian courts consistently take a pro-arbitration approach when a party com - mences court proceedings in breach of a valid arbi - tration 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 par - ties agree to arbitrate, the court’s jurisdiction is oust - ed unless the arbitration agreement is null, void, or incapable of being performed. Cases such as ZCCM Investment Holdings Plc v Vedanta Resources Hold- ings Limited and Konkola Copper Mines Plc and Sav- enda Management Services Limited v Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited reflect this general willingness to uphold arbitration agreements and encourage alter - native 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 agree - ment. 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties 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 Con- stantinos 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 con - sensual process. The principle of privity was recently reaffirmed in Roland Imperial Tobacco Company Limited v Bpi- france Assurance Export (2026 ZMCA 74). The Court
1196 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook