Zambia
Dismissal for absenteeism without a hearing (case law)
Impact date: 1 December 2025 A recent High Court case considered whether dismissing an employee for absenteeism without holding a hearing amounted to an unfair and wrongful dismissal.
The complainant was employed by the respondent from 1 June 1997. In May 2018, they were charged with absenteeism and asked not to report for work pending a disciplinary hearing which never occurred. They were removed from the payroll and their attempts to resolve the issue were ignored. The charge form used someone else's name which was manually altered to their name. The complainant sought a declaration of unlawful termination, damages, and salary arrears.
The court held that the complainant was separated through dismissal, not termination. The dismissal was found to be both unfair and wrongful because the respondent failed to provide substantiated reasons for dismissal and failed to follow a fair procedure (denial of the right to be heard). Damages of 36 months' full salary plus interest and costs were awarded.
Employer implications/action needed Employers must comply with procedural fairness and natural justice requirements, including providing clear reasons for disciplinary action and ensuring an employee is given an opportunity to be heard before any dismissal decision is made.
Employer risk Employers face a high risk of a dismissal being declared unlawful where proper procedures and the right to a fair hearing are not strictly followed, even in cases involving alleged absenteeism.
Constructive dismissal arising from indefinite suspension (case law)
Impact date: 9 December 2025 A recent High Court case considered whether indefinite suspensions and investigations amounted to constructive dismissal.
Seven former employees alleged that they had been subjected to indefinite suspensions and investigations by their employer, dating back to 2018 without resolution. The employees argued that the treatment amounted to constructive dismissal and breach of their employment contracts. They sought damages for unfair labor practices, including compensation for loss of employment and violation of their rights.
The court upheld their claims, finding that the employer’s actions prolonged suspension without conclusion and amounted to procedural unfairness, constituting constructive dismissal. The employer was ordered to compensate the employees for breach of contract and unfair termination.
Employer implications/action needed Employers must conclude investigations and disciplinary processes within a reasonable timeframe. Indefinite suspension without closure is unlawful, and employers should avoid “suspension as punishment” without resolution. Clear communication of charges, fair hearings, and documented procedures are essential. Suspension should be used sparingly, with defined timelines and regular updates to the employee.
Employer risk Failure to follow statutory and contractual processes exposes the employer to liability for unfair dismissal, breach of contract.
Pension scheme change (case law)
Impact date: 29 December 2025 A recent High Court case considered whether an employer acted unlawfully by unilaterally migrating a pension plan from a defined‑benefit to a defined‑contribution scheme without notice to the employees and without their consent.
The court ruled in favour of the employees and ordered that their pension benefits be recalculated in accordance with the original defined‑benefit scheme.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should avoid making unilateral changes to pension schemes that diminish employee entitlements; any proposed amendments, particularly those affecting the value of benefits, must be preceded by proper consultation and compliance with the Trust Deed and scheme rules.
Employer risk Employers face increased exposure to disputes, litigation costs, and potential liability for recalculated benefits and damages if pension scheme changes are made without authority or employee consultation.
Link N/A
Arrangements at the end of secondments (case law)
Impact date: 6 February 2026 A recent High Court case considered whether an employer unlawfully deprived an employee of salary and benefits by failing to redeploy her and failing to pay her while she remained available and willing to work.
The court ruled that that the employer had unlawfully deprived the employee of salary and benefits in circumstances where her secondment ended on 7 September 2022 and she was neither redeployed nor reinstated to the payroll, leaving her unpaid for approximately 17 months until the judgment on 8 February 2024. It ordered that she be reinstated and paid full salary and benefits for the entire period of deprivation.
Employer implications/action needed Employers must treat secondments strictly as a temporary assignments, not a transfers, and clearly define what will occur when a secondment ends. An employer cannot lawfully cease paying salary merely because the employee is not being allocated work. Where an employee remains available to perform duties and has not withdrawn their labour, the employer retains a primary obligation to pay wages and maintain employment benefits.
Employer risk Misclassifying or mishandling a secondment exposes employers to significant financial liability, including arrears of salary and full benefits for the entire period of deprivation.
Link N/A
Secondment terms (case law)
Impact date: 6 February 2026 A recent Court of Appeal case considered whether police officers seconded to the Bank of Zambia were entitled to the Bank’s Conditions of Service or remained secondees governed by their original terms.
The High Court held that the officers were entitled to the Bank’s Conditions of Service. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the officers were secondees and therefore not automatically entitled to the Bank’s employment terms. The court characterized the matter as unsuitable for determination on a preliminary issue, set aside the High Court decision, and remitted the case for a full trial.
Employer implications/action needed Employers must ensure that they sign clear agreements with staff seconded to their facilities. Secondment agreements must expressly state whether internal policies, government circulars, or host-institution conditions apply.
Employer risk Poorly drafted or informal secondment arrangements may expose employers to unexpected financial liabilities, disputes over applicable conditions of service, and protracted litigation, particularly where terms appear inconsistent with rules or internal policies.
No retirement after dismissal (case law)
Impact date: 18 February 2026 A plaintiff claimed entitlement to retirement gratuity on the basis that they had reached retirement age, in addition to severance benefits. The employer argued that because the plaintiff had been dismissed, the provisions relating to early or normal retirement, both of which require a separate, agreed process, did not apply.
The High Court held that an employee who is dismissed cannot subsequently be treated as retired for the purposes of receiving a retirement gratuity. Instead, the employee is only entitled to the repayment of accrued superannuation and retirement contributions, together with any other accrued benefits up to the dismissal date. The court confirmed that an employee who is summarily dismissed is entitled only to wages and “other accrued benefits due… up to (pro‑rated) the date of dismissal.”
Employer implications/action needed Employers and pension fund administrators must ensure that dismissed employees are paid all accrued benefits up to the dismissal date, including any contributions or entitlements accumulated.
Employer risk Failure to pay accrued benefits on dismissal exposes employers to litigation and potentially significant legal costs.
Contact
Grace Chalwe Chilekwa Partner – Head Of Dispute Resolution and Employment
E: grace.chilekwa@abdavid.com T: +260 211 258 403
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.