Zambia Legal Information Institute

Zambia Legal Information Institute ZambiaLII, hosted by SAIPAR, pioneers free law access in Zambia. It provides legal materials and executes sustainable projects. It is affiliated to AfricaLII.

As the sole conduit for free legal access, it serves both the legal community and the public.

30/06/2026

What is bail under Zambian Law, and how does it work?

Precious Chishimba Kanyanta v Ivan Sibalwa (suing as administrator of the Estate of late Grace Siachenda) and Anor (APPE...
19/06/2026

Precious Chishimba Kanyanta v Ivan Sibalwa (suing as administrator of the Estate of late Grace Siachenda) and Anor (APPEAL NO. 236/2023) (27 May 2026)

Letters of administration may be revoked if obtained on the basis of an essential untrue statement, even if the statement was made innocently.

The appellant appealed against a High Court decision revoking letters of administration that had been issued to her in respect of the deceased's estate. The High Court found that she was not the deceased's lawful surviving spouse and that the 2nd respondent was the lawful surviving spouse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the revocation under section 29(1)(c) of the Intestate Succession Act, holding that a grant may be revoked where it was obtained through an essential untrue statement, even if the statement was made deliberately or innocently. The Court recognised the appellant as a dependant of the deceased and acknowledged her contribution towards the construction of a house forming part of the estate.
Read the full case on ZambiaLII: eng@2026-05-27" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmca/2026/91/eng@2026-05-27

Issac Mwanza and Anor v Chitalu Chilufya and Ors (2026/HP/EP/002) (3 June 2026)Nomination petitions - Failure to file m...
05/06/2026

Issac Mwanza and Anor v Chitalu Chilufya and Ors (2026/HP/EP/002) (3 June 2026)
Nomination petitions - Failure to file mandatory skeleton arguments and authorities with a nomination petition takes away the court’s power to hear the case (Jurisdiction) .
The petitioners filed a nomination petition challenging multiple independent candidates but filed only an affidavit verifying facts at the time of filing, omitting skeleton arguments, a list of authorities with copies, and related documents required by Rule 4(3) of the High Court (Election Petition) Rules, 2026.
Certain respondents raised a preliminary objection that the omission was fatal and deprived the court of jurisdiction. The petitioners argued the defect was curable, invoking constitutional principles against undue attention to procedural technicalities.
The court examined the mandatory wording of Rule 4(1) and (3) and relevant Supreme Court and Constitutional Court authorities. It held that the Rules are comprehensive and the use of "shall" makes the requirements mandatory. The court found that the omission was a fundamental and fatal defect that prevented it from hearing the petition. The petition was dismissed .
Read the full case on ZambiaLII: eng@2026-06-03" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmhc/2026/73/eng@2026-06-03

Aggrey Chisanga v Grace Samasumo (2024/HP/A/063) (18 May 2026)A pre-marital house is not immune from property adjustment...
28/05/2026

Aggrey Chisanga v Grace Samasumo (2024/HP/A/063) (18 May 2026)
A pre-marital house is not immune from property adjustment on divorce where a spouse proves substantial post-marital contributions.
The appellant appealed a Subordinate Court decision awarding him 20% of the value of a house the respondent had purchased before marriage. The respondent argued that the property could not be considered matrimonial property, and that the appellant's contributions during the marriage did not justify an equal share. She maintained that the 20% award was already fair.
The High Court held that a property acquired by one spouse before marriage is not automatically immune from adjustment. Where the other spouse makes substantial post-marital financial or non-financial contributions towards its completion or enhancement, the property becomes amenable to adjustment to the extent of such contributions.
On the final percentage share, the Court referred the matter for further inquiry before the Registrar, who may review receipts, trace loan proceeds, and value completed works. The Registrar will assess the financial and non-financial contributions of both parties, and consider any further documents or evidence needed to determine each party's respective share more accurately.
Read the full judgment on ZambiaLII: eng@2026-05-18" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmhc/2026/69/eng@2026-05-18

Mputa Ngalande v The Attorney General (2025/CCZ/0019) (11 May 2026)Whether ministerial powers to suspend elected council...
13/05/2026

Mputa Ngalande v The Attorney General (2025/CCZ/0019) (11 May 2026)
Whether ministerial powers to suspend elected councils and appoint administrators violate constitutional guarantees of local government autonomy.
The applicant challenged sections 56 and 57 of the Local Government Act, which permit the Minister of Local Government and Rural Development to suspend an elected council and appoint a Public Officer as Local Government Administrator, whose decisions are deemed to be those of the council.
The applicant argued that these provisions violate constitutional principles of devolved governance, non-interference, councillor accountability, and the autonomy of sub-structures. The respondent defended the provisions as legitimate oversight measures and relied on Parliament’s power to enact laws giving effect to constitutional provisions.
The Court held that the Constitution makes no provision for the suspension of a local authority by the national Government and that sections 56 and 57 of the Local Government Act, insofar as they empower the Minister to suspend elected councils and appoint an unelected Local Government Administrator to perform council functions, are inconsistent with Articles 152(2) and 156 of the Constitution and are therefore void to the extent of that inconsistency.
The Court further held that the provisions undermine the devolution and autonomy of sub-structures guaranteed under Article 147(3) and contravene Article 153(3) by disrupting the democratic mandate of elected councillors.
The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that Parliament could, pursuant to Article 272, lawfully confer suspension powers on the Minister where such powers conflict with the Constitution, affirming that ordinary legislation cannot override constitutional guarantees of local autonomy.
Read the full case on ZambiaLII: eng@2026-05-11" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmcc/2026/12/eng@2026-05-11

Read the full Bill on ZambiaLII: https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/doc/bill/2026-02-05/the-electoral-process-amendment-bill-2...
08/05/2026

Read the full Bill on ZambiaLII: eng@2026-04-15" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/doc/bill/2026-02-05/the-electoral-process-amendment-bill-2026/eng@2026-04-15

Zambia Civil Liberties Union v Commissioner for Refugees and Others (2025/CCZ/003) (27 April 2026)Interpretation of cons...
04/05/2026

Zambia Civil Liberties Union v Commissioner for Refugees and Others (2025/CCZ/003) (27 April 2026)
Interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to citizenship rights for refugees and their children born in Zambia. Refugee status of parents is not a bar to citizenship by birth.
The applicant challenged section 2 of the Citizenship of Zambia Act, arguing that its definition of "ordinarily resident" (which requires holding a residence permit) is inconsistent with Article 266 of the Constitution and unlawfully narrows constitutional citizenship rights, affecting refugees and their children born in Zambia. The applicant also alleged that Parliament had altered the Constitution without following Article 79 procedures.
The respondent argued that there was no inconsistency and that the statutory definition elaborated the constitutional concept. An amicus brief emphasised Zambia’s international obligation to prevent statelessness.
The Court held that section 2 of the Citizenship Act is inconsistent with the Constitution to the extent that it qualifies the constitutional meaning of "ordinarily resident" by requiring possession of a residence permit issued under the Immigration and Deportation Act. That statutory qualification narrows the constitutional definition in Article 266 and is therefore invalid to the extent of that inconsistency.
The Court ordered and declared that the definition of "ordinarily resident" contained in section 2 of the Citizenship Act, in so far as it qualifies the meaning of that term to include the holding of a residence permit issued under the Immigration and Deportation Act is inconsistent with the Constitution and is Invalid to the extent of that inconsistency.
Read the full judgment on ZambiaLII; eng@2026-04-27" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmcc/2026/11/eng@2026-04-27

Legal Resources Foundation Limited v The Attorney General (2025/CCZ/0020) (2 April 2026)Constitutional duty to legislate...
27/04/2026

Legal Resources Foundation Limited v The Attorney General (2025/CCZ/0020) (2 April 2026)
Constitutional duty to legislate political parties’ legislation per Article 60(4) of the Constitution of Zambia.
The applicant petitioned the Constitutional Court challenging the Executive and Parliament’s failure to enact legislation required by Article 60(4) to regulate political parties, arguing that the omission undermines constitutional supremacy, internal party democracy, financial transparency and free and fair elections.
The respondent acknowledged preparation of a 2017 draft Bill but attributed non-enactment to halted processes and financial constraints.
The Court held that Article 60(4) imposes a mandatory constitutional duty to legislate regulating political parties and that the prolonged failure to enact such legislation since 2016 is unconstitutional and justiciable under Article 128(3).
The Respondent’s reliance on the absence of an express timeline, or alleged financial constraints does not justify indefinite non-performance.
The Respondent was ordered to take appropriate legislative measures to enact legislation and a Code of Conduct to give effect to Article 60(4) and Article 60(2)(g) within twelve (12) months from the date of the judgment.
Read full case on ZambiaLII: eng@2026-04-02" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmcc/2026/9/eng@2026-04-02

Criminal Procedure Code ( Amendment) Act No. 4 of 2026 Insights.
27/04/2026

Criminal Procedure Code ( Amendment) Act No. 4 of 2026 Insights.

Address

32 A, District Road
Lusaka

Opening Hours

Monday 09:00 - 16:00
Tuesday 09:00 - 16:00
Wednesday 09:00 - 16:00
Thursday 09:00 - 16:00
Friday 09:00 - 13:00

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Zambia Legal Information Institute posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category