Zambia Case Law

Yaolin Shen (Suing in his capacity as Secretary General of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Zambia) v News Diggers Media Zambia (2025/HP/0722)

Yaolin Shen (Suing in his capacity as Secretary General of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Zambia) v News Diggers Media Zambia (2025/HP/0722) [2025] ZMHC 68 (14 July 2025)

Court

High Court of Zambia

Case number

2025/HP/0722

The High Court refused to maintain an interlocutory injunction against a media house’s planned documentary preview, finding no actionable defamation by a class and noting justification would be pleaded.

• Interlocutory injunctions
• Defamation of class
• Freedom of expression
• Defamation
• Interlocutory-injunctions
• Freedom-of-expression

Read case analysis

Clement Kasonde v Stanbic Bank Zambia (2020/HPC/0609)

Clement Kasonde v Stanbic Bank Zambia (2020/HPC/0609) [2025] ZMHC 47 (14 July 2025)

Court

High Court of Zambia

Case number

2020/HPC/0609

The High Court dismissed a customer’s negligence claim against Stanbic Bank Zambia over a failed attempt to recall a cross-border transfer after it had been processed.

• Duty of care
• Negligence
• Banking transactions
• Cross-border transfers
• Breach of contract
• Banking-law

Read case analysis

Kalunga Chansa v Evelyn Hone College Applied Arts and Commerce (CAZ/8/254/2017)

Kalunga Chansa v Evelyn Hone College Applied Arts and Commerce (CAZ/8/254/2017) [2025] ZMCA 93 (11 July 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Zambia

Case number

CAZ/8/254/2017

The Court of Appeal of Zambia allowed an application to extend time for filing appeal documents, holding that a two-day delay was technical and not fatal.

• Extension of time
• Appeals
• Procedural technicalities
• Extension-of-time
• Procedural-technicalities
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Sandie Mkandawire v Trinity University (2022/HPIR/889)

Sandie Mkandawire v Trinity University (2022/HPIR/889) [2025] ZMHC 55 (9 July 2025)

Court

High Court of Zambia

Case number

2022/HPIR/889

The Complainant was wrongfully dismissed without being heard, is entitled to four months' salary as damages, unpaid salary arrears, accrued leave days (subject to assessment), and gratuity at 25% of basic pay for the period worked, with interest as specified.

Source excerpt

• Wrongful dismissal
• Unpaid salaries
• Gratuity
• Leave days
• Severance pay

Read case analysis

Christopher Mwimba & 16 Ors v Lafarge Cement Zambia Plc (APPEAL NO. 146/2018)

Christopher Mwimba & 16 Ors v Lafarge Cement Zambia Plc (APPEAL NO. 146/2018) [2025] ZMCA 174 (9 July 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Zambia

Case number

APPEAL NO. 146/2018

The Court of Appeal dismissed an employment appeal seeking recalculation of redundancy dues to include fixed-term service periods, finding no discrimination or unpaid entitlement.

• Redundancy benefits
• Discrimination
• Employment contracts
• Unjust enrichment
• Redundancy-benefits
• Fixed-term-employment

Read case analysis

Dhiraj Dhunputh v Forges Tardieu Zambia Limited and Anor (COMP/IRCK/527/2021)

Dhiraj Dhunputh v Forges Tardieu Zambia Limited and Anor (COMP/IRCK/527/2021) [2025] ZMHC 44 (3 July 2025)

Court

High Court of Zambia

Case number

COMP/IRCK/527/2021

The High Court held it lacked jurisdiction over an employment complaint against a Mauritian employer, finding the claimant was assigned to Zambia but employed in Mauritius.

• Jurisdiction of court
• Employment contracts
• Governing law
• Subsidiary liability
• Employment-law
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Basscom Enterprises Limited and 3 Ors v Bharti Airtel Zambia Holdings BVand 2 Ors (APPEAL NO. 219/2021)

Basscom Enterprises Limited and 3 Ors v Bharti Airtel Zambia Holdings BVand 2 Ors (APPEAL NO. 219/2021) [2025] ZMCA 86 (30 June 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Zambia

Case number

APPEAL NO. 219/2021

The Share Sale Agreement, being executed outside Zambia and not authenticated in accordance with the Authentication of Documents Act, is invalid for use in Zambian courts for any purpose. Neither the appellants nor the 1st and 2nd Respondents are parties to the SSA, and the document cannot be compelled from non-parties. The doctrine of estoppel cannot override statutory requirements. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Authentication of foreign documents
• Privity of contract
• Piercing the corporate veil
• Statutory compliance
• Best evidence rule

Read case analysis

Charity Masambo Katanga v the People (HPEF/07/2024)

Charity Masambo Katanga v the People (HPEF/07/2024) [2025] ZMHC 41 (30 June 2025)

Court

High Court of Zambia

Case number

HPEF/07/2024

The Appellant failed to provide credible, contemporaneous, and verifiable evidence to explain the acquisition of the buses, and the prosecution established reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that the assets were disproportionate to known income. The conviction and forfeiture order were proper under the FPOCA, which classifies the offence as serious and does not require proof of a predicate offence. Only K100,000 traced to a legitimate source was excluded from forfeiture.

Source excerpt

• Possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime
• Forfeiture of assets
• Burden of proof in criminal cases
• Standard of proof (balance of probabilities)
• Statutory interpretation of proceeds of crime legislation

Read case analysis

People v Elizabeth Nkonde and Billington Mosha (2SPR/223/22)

People v Elizabeth Nkonde and Billington Mosha (2SPR/223/22) [2025] ZMSUB 1 (30 June 2025)

Court

Subordinate Court of Zambia

Case number

2SPR/223/22

The court convicted Elizabeth Nkonde and Billington Mosha of forgery and related offences over land-transfer documents, and found Mosha guilty of giving false information.

• Forgery
• Uttering false documents
• Giving false information to a public officer
• Uttering-false-documents
• False-information-to-public-officer
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis

Munir Zulu and Anor v Attorney General (2025/CCZ/009)

Munir Zulu and Anor v Attorney General (2025/CCZ/009) [2025] ZMCC 12 (27 June 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court of Zambia

Case number

2025/CCZ/009

The majority held that the initiation of the constitutional amendment process must be preceded by wide public consultations with the people of Zambia. The Court found that the absence of such consultations rendered the process illegitimate and contrary to the spirit and provisions of the Constitution, specifically Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 61, 90, 91, and 92. The Court further held that it has jurisdiction under Article 128(3)(c) to review the constitutionality of the pre-Bill stage of constitutional amendments. The claim that the precedent in LAZ/Chapter One v AG was per incuriam was dismis…

Source excerpt

• Constitutional amendment process
• Public participation
• Judicial review
• Legislative procedure

Read case analysis