Zambia

Impact date: 14 July 2025 Following the termination of their permanent employment contract, an employee successfully brought action against their employer in the Subordinate Court, claiming severance pay.

The employer appealed to the High Court regarding whether the action was properly commenced before the Subordinate Court, and against the award made. The High Court confirmed that Subordinate Courts have jurisdiction to hear severance pay claims. However, it determined that severance pay payable upon termination of a fixed duration contract applies only to employees eligible for a gratuity, specifically those on long-term contracts of 12 months or more, renewable for further terms. It does not apply to employees on permanent and pensionable contracts.

Impact date: 1 August 2025 The High Court addressed whether a former employee of the Irish Embassy in Lusaka could sue for constructive dismissal despite the Embassy’s diplomatic immunity. Initially, the court dismissed the application, citing the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, which shields diplomatic entities from legal proceedings. However, upon review, exceptions under international law were acknowledged —particularly the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property—that allow employment-related claims against diplomatic missions in certain circumstances. The court ultimately held that sovereign immunity does not automatically bar employment disputes, especially where the employment was governed by Zambian law and the nature of the work was not inherently diplomatic.

Impact date: 21 August 2025 The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling awarding 36 months’ salary to a dismissed employee. While internal disciplinary procedures were followed, the dismissal was found to be both wrongful and unfair. Systemic failures in the employer’s offshore and centralized procurement system had affected the employee’s performance, resulting in the dismissal. Further, the disciplinary process relied on internal administrative policies not incorporated into a disciplinary code. The Court emphasized that disciplinary action must be grounded in enforceable codes, not administrative policies lacking procedural safeguards.