ZAMBIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Luckson Mwamba, Katongo Bwalya and Mumba Mwila, Mwamba & Milan Advocates
sional standards of conduct, but are ordinarily regulat - ed by the professional rules of their home jurisdiction. 13.3 Third-Party Funding In Zambia, there are currently no restrictions or regu - lations 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. 13.4 Consolidation 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 pro - ceedings. As the legal framework is currently silent on this matter, it is unclear under what circumstances, if any, separate arbitrations could be consolidated. 13.5 Binding of Third Parties In Zambia, the principle of consent underpins arbitra - tion, 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 arbi - tration 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 arbitra - tion clause contained in the underlying supply con - tract because the assignment transferred only the receivables and not the contractual rights and obli - gations 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.
1203 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook