How to Appoint and Challenge Arbitrators in Zambia (2026): the Arbitration Act, Court Powers and Practical Steps

Quick summary, who can appoint and how

Arbitrator appointment Zambia procedures follow a clear hierarchy that every in-house counsel and external lawyer should understand before a dispute crystallises. The starting point is always the parties’ agreement: where the arbitration clause names a mechanism, that mechanism governs. Where the parties cannot agree, the appointing authority steps in, commonly an institution such as the Lusaka International Arbitration Centre (LIAC) for institutional cases, or a designated appointing authority for ad hoc references, frequently under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. As a fallback, the Zambian High Court can be asked to appoint an arbitrator to prevent a tribunal from failing to constitute.

In 2026, with growing attention on arbitration in Lusaka and continuing debate around ADR reform, getting the sequence right matters more than ever. This guide sets out the practical steps, timelines, model wording and court remedies so that counsel can constitute a tribunal, or challenge an arbitrator, with confidence. It should be read alongside the Arbitration Act No. 19 of 2000, which is the governing statute in Zambia and is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

When and who appoints arbitrators in Zambia

The foundation of any arbitrator appointment Zambia exercise is the arbitration agreement, applied within the framework of the Arbitration Act. A valid clause may specify the number of arbitrators, the nomination procedure, the appointing authority and the applicable rules. Where the clause is complete, the parties simply follow it. Problems arise when the clause is silent, ambiguous or incomplete, for example, where it refers to arbitration “in Zambia” without naming an institution, or where it provides for a three-member tribunal but says nothing about how the presiding arbitrator is chosen.

What constitutes a binding agreement on appointment is a question of construction. A clear reference to an institution or to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules imports that regime’s default appointment machinery. A clause that merely says “the parties shall agree an arbitrator” without a fallback is vulnerable to deadlock, and this is precisely where an appointing authority or the court becomes essential. Counsel should treat any gap in the appointment mechanism as a risk to be closed at the drafting stage, not left to be resolved under pressure once a dispute has begun.

Number of arbitrators Zambia: default rules and practical implications

The number of arbitrators Zambia parties choose has direct consequences for cost, speed and the mechanics of constitution. A sole arbitrator is cheaper and faster, and is generally appropriate for lower-value or documents-only disputes. A three-member tribunal is more expensive and slower to constitute but offers a broader base of expertise and is common in high-value or technically complex matters.

Where the agreement is silent on number, the Arbitration Act, any chosen institutional rules and the UNCITRAL default mechanism supply a fallback. The practical implication is significant: a sole-arbitrator default speeds constitution but may be resisted by a party seeking to slow proceedings, whereas a three-member default requires each side to nominate a co-arbitrator, with the presiding arbitrator selected by the two co-arbitrators or by the appointing authority. Counsel should always check the number specified in the agreement and, where none is specified, the default applicable under the chosen rules and the Act.

When an appointing authority is required, timelines and triggers

An appointing authority is required whenever the parties’ own machinery breaks down. The typical triggers are: a respondent’s failure to nominate a co-arbitrator within the period allowed after receiving the claimant’s nomination; the two party-appointed arbitrators’ failure to agree on a presiding arbitrator; and a complete deadlock where the parties cannot agree on a sole arbitrator. Each of these triggers has a corresponding time limit under the applicable rules and the Arbitration Act, and once that limit expires the requesting party may apply to the appointing authority, an institution such as LIAC in institutional cases, or the authority designated under the ad hoc regime, to make the appointment.

Missing or ignoring these deadlines is one of the most common causes of avoidable delay in Zambian arbitrations.

Using an institution, step-by-step arbitrator appointment Zambia under institutional rules

For institutional cases, the arbitrator appointment Zambia process runs through the chosen institution as the appointing authority. Institutional rules typically set out a structured sequence covering initiation, nomination, deposits and, where the rules provide, emergency measures. The steps below describe the practical flow counsel should follow; the exact days, forms and fees are governed by the current rules of the institution chosen, and counsel must always work from the version in force at the time the request is filed.

Initiating the appointment under an institution: forms, timing and fees

1. File the request for arbitration. The claimant lodges the request with the institution’s secretariat, identifying the parties, the arbitration agreement, the dispute in outline and, where the agreement so provides, its nomination of an arbitrator.
2. Pay the registration fee. The institution will typically require an initial filing or registration fee before the case is registered. Confirm the current schedule with the secretariat before filing.
3. Serve the respondent. The respondent is notified and given a defined period to respond and, in a three-member case, to nominate its co-arbitrator.
4. Trigger the appointing authority. If the respondent fails to nominate within time, or the parties cannot agree a sole arbitrator, the institution steps in as appointing authority to make the appointment.

Because the precise filing periods and fees are fixed by each institution’s rules and fee schedule, treat the steps above as the structure rather than the detail: verify each period against the current rules, and note the version and date of the rules on your file.

The appointing authority process and what counsel should file

When an institution acts as appointing authority, its role is to secure a suitably qualified, independent and impartial tribunal within the shortest reasonable time. Counsel seeking an appointment should file a concise application identifying the arbitration agreement, the steps already taken, the deadline that has passed and any specific qualifications the dispute requires, for example sector expertise, language ability or experience with a particular governing law.

The institution will consider disclosures made by candidate arbitrators. Every prospective arbitrator is expected to disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality, an obligation reflected in the Arbitration Act. Counsel should scrutinise these disclosures at the appointment stage, because a matter disclosed and not objected to becomes far harder to raise later as a ground of challenge. Where the institution appoints, it will confirm the appointment, and the tribunal is then treated as duly constituted for the purposes of the reference.

Common practice points, practical tips

• Nominate early and specifically. Include your preferred candidate and their qualifications in the request itself rather than leaving nomination to a later round of correspondence.
• Pay deposits promptly. Late payment of deposits is a recurring cause of delay; budget for them at the outset.
• Read disclosures against the IBA-style standard. Treat any disclosed relationship as a decision point, object now or accept the risk of waiver.
• Use emergency provisions where the rules allow. Where urgent interim relief is needed before the tribunal is constituted, check whether the current institutional rules provide an emergency appointment procedure.

Ad hoc / UNCITRAL appointments and the appointing authority role

Not every Zambian arbitration is institutional. Many contracts provide for ad hoc arbitration, frequently under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In these cases the appointing authority role is filled by whichever institution or person the parties have designated, or, if none is designated, by the mechanism supplied by the UNCITRAL framework, with the Arbitration Act and the High Court available as a backstop. Understanding this fallback is essential, because ad hoc references have no secretariat to drive the process forward, and constitution depends entirely on the parties and the designated authority.

UNCITRAL default appointment process, model practice

Under the UNCITRAL default mechanism, where the parties have not agreed on an appointing authority, one can be designated so that the appointment can proceed. In a three-member tribunal, each party appoints one arbitrator and the two so appointed choose the presiding arbitrator; if a party fails to appoint, or the two co-arbitrators cannot agree, the appointing authority makes the appointment on request. For a sole arbitrator, where the parties cannot agree, the appointing authority appoints on the application of a party. The mechanism is deliberately robust: it is designed to ensure that a recalcitrant party cannot frustrate the arbitration simply by refusing to participate in constitution.

Where no appointing authority acts, the Arbitration Act allows recourse to the High Court to secure appointment.

Practical differences vs institutional arbitration

The most important practical difference is administrative support. An institution provides a secretariat, fixed timelines, a fee schedule and, where the rules allow, emergency procedures. An ad hoc reference offers flexibility and potentially lower institutional cost, but places the administrative burden on counsel and depends on the designated appointing authority responding promptly. Where speed and certainty matter, institutional administration is usually preferable; where the parties value flexibility and control, ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules remains a legitimate choice. The comparison table below sets out the differences at a glance.

Challenging an arbitrator in Zambia, grounds, procedure and timeline

Even a carefully constituted tribunal may need to be challenged. The right to challenge an arbitrator Zambia parties enjoy is a safeguard for the integrity of the process under the Arbitration Act, but it is time-sensitive and evidence-driven. A challenge that is filed late, or unsupported by concrete facts, is likely to fail and may expose the challenging party to costs. The core discipline is simple: identify the ground, gather the evidence, and file within the period fixed by the applicable rules and the Act.

Grounds for challenge, arbitrator disclosure impartiality Zambia

The recognised grounds for challenge centre on arbitrator disclosure impartiality Zambia standards. They include:

• Justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality. Typically bias, a financial or personal interest, or an undisclosed relationship with a party, counsel or the subject matter.
• Non-disclosure. Failure to disclose circumstances the arbitrator was obliged to reveal, often more damaging than the underlying fact itself.
• Lack of agreed qualifications. Where the arbitration agreement required a specific qualification the arbitrator does not hold.
• Failure or inability to act. Where the arbitrator becomes incapacitated, fails to perform functions, or causes undue delay.

The evidentiary burden lies on the party bringing the challenge. Doubts must be justifiable on an objective basis, a subjective feeling of unfairness is not enough. Documentary evidence, disclosure records and a clear chronology are the building blocks of a successful challenge.

Procedural steps under institutional rules vs ad hoc

Under institutional rules, a challenge is filed with the secretariat within the period specified in the rules, setting out the grounds and the supporting facts. The other party and the challenged arbitrator are given the opportunity to comment. If the arbitrator does not withdraw and the other party does not agree to the challenge, the institution decides. In an ad hoc reference under the UNCITRAL framework, the challenge is notified to the other party and the tribunal; if the challenge is not accepted and the arbitrator does not withdraw, the appointing authority determines it. The Arbitration Act also allows a party, in defined circumstances, to ask the High Court to decide on the challenge.

In all cases, the challenging party should preserve its position by making the objection promptly and in writing.

Practical timeline and strategic tips

• File within the rule period. Challenge deadlines are short and run from the date the challenging party learns of the ground. Diarise them immediately.
• Object now, not in the award. A party that continues without objecting after learning of a ground risks being held to have waived it.
• Consider the strategic cost. An unsuccessful challenge can sour the relationship with the tribunal; weigh the merits carefully before filing.
• Seek interim court relief only where genuinely urgent. Where the integrity of the process cannot await the institutional decision, an application to the High Court may be warranted.

When Zambian courts can remove or appoint arbitrators

The Zambian courts retain a supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration under the Arbitration Act, and understanding when they will intervene is central to any arbitrator appointment Zambia strategy. The courts continue to play a defined supporting and supervisory role in ADR, stepping in where the arbitral process cannot resolve a matter itself. That role is deliberately limited: the courts balance the finality and party autonomy that make arbitration attractive against the need to protect fundamental fairness and to ensure a tribunal is actually constituted.

Standard of review and typical remedies

Court intervention in constitution and challenge is a gateway of last resort, not a routine step. The typical remedies a court may grant include appointing an arbitrator where the agreed or institutional mechanism has failed; deciding a challenge or removing an arbitrator where justifiable doubts as to impartiality or a failure to act are established and cannot be cured within the arbitral process; and, in appropriate cases, staying court proceedings or granting interim relief in support of the arbitration to preserve the parties’ rights. The court will generally defer to the arbitral mechanism first, intervening only where that mechanism is exhausted or incapable of delivering a fair result.

Procedural checklist for an application to the High Court

1. Confirm the gateway. Identify the statutory (Arbitration Act) or contractual basis on which the court is asked to act, and show that the arbitral mechanism has failed or is unavailable.
2. Assemble the evidence. File a supporting affidavit exhibiting the arbitration agreement, the correspondence evidencing deadlock or the ground of removal, and any disclosure records.
3. Plead urgency where relevant. If interim relief is needed before a tribunal is constituted, explain why the matter cannot await the arbitral process.
4. State the relief precisely. Ask specifically for appointment, removal, or a stay, and identify a qualified candidate where appointment is sought.

Practical checklist and comparison table for arbitrator appointment Zambia

The following checklist condenses the arbitrator appointment Zambia workflow into a sequence counsel can work through when a dispute begins, and the comparison table sets the three constitution routes side by side.

• Read the clause first. Identify number, rules, seat, appointing authority and any qualification requirements.
• Diarise every deadline. Nomination periods, response periods and challenge windows.
• Nominate specifically and disclose fully. Put forward a qualified candidate and scrutinise their disclosures.
• Escalate to the appointing authority on default. The chosen institution or the UNCITRAL-designated authority.
• Reserve the court route for genuine failure. Where the mechanism cannot deliver a constituted, impartial tribunal.

Comparison table: institutional vs UNCITRAL (ad hoc) vs Court appointment

Downloadable checklist and sample documents

A one-page appointment and challenge checklist, together with editable nomination and challenge templates, can be prepared to accompany this guide. Treat any template as a starting point only: verify the current filing rules, deadlines and fees before use, and adapt the wording to the specific arbitration agreement and the Arbitration Act.

Costs, deposits and interim relief when the tribunal is not constituted

Costs are a live issue before a tribunal exists. In institutional cases, the institution will typically require an advance on costs or deposit to cover arbitrator fees and administrative expenses, and non-payment can stall the reference. Security for costs, where available, is usually a matter for the tribunal once constituted, but the period before constitution is precisely when a party may need urgent protection. Where interim or conservatory relief is needed and no tribunal yet exists, counsel should consider whether the applicable rules provide an emergency arbitrator procedure, or whether an application to the Zambian courts for interim relief in support of the arbitration, as contemplated by the Arbitration Act, is the faster and more secure route.

Best practice: budget and security clauses

Draft the arbitration clause with cost mechanics in mind: address the allocation of deposits, the availability of emergency relief and security for costs, and the consequences of a party’s failure to pay its share. Building these provisions into the contract reduces the scope for tactical non-payment and gives the tribunal a clear mandate once constituted.

Model letters and sample challenge wording

The two short snippets below illustrate tone and content. They are guidance only and must be adapted to the applicable rules, the Arbitration Act and the specific agreement before filing.

(A) Nomination letter for a party-appointed arbitrator. “In accordance with clause [ ] of the agreement dated [ ] and the [applicable] Rules, [Party] hereby nominates [Name], of [address], as arbitrator. A statement of independence and impartiality and confirmation of availability is enclosed. We invite [the other party] to nominate its co-arbitrator within the period provided by the Rules.”

(B) Challenge notice. “Pursuant to [Rule / provision], [Party] challenges [Name] as arbitrator on the ground that [state ground concisely, e.g., undisclosed relationship with a party giving rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality]. The facts relied on are set out in the enclosed statement. [Party] invites the arbitrator to withdraw; failing withdrawal, [Party] requests that the [appointing authority / institution] determine this challenge.”

Conclusion

Getting arbitrator appointment Zambia procedure right is a matter of discipline: read the clause, respect the deadlines, use the appointing authority when the parties’ own machinery fails, and reserve the courts for genuine breakdown. In 2026, with arbitration’s institutional profile rising in Lusaka and ongoing attention to ADR reform, counsel who understand the interplay between the Arbitration Act, institutional rules, the UNCITRAL default mechanism and the courts’ supervisory jurisdiction will constitute tribunals faster and challenge arbitrators more effectively. Treat the timelines and fees in this guide as the framework, verify them against the current institutional rules and the Arbitration Act No.

19 of 2000, and take local advice before filing so that every step in the arbitrator appointment Zambia process is grounded in the primary text in force at the time.

Sources

1. Arbitration Act No. 19 of 2000 (Zambia), the governing statute for arbitration, based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.
2. UNCITRAL, Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules