Supreme Court backs Lumwana redundancy consultation

LUSAKA — The Supreme Court of Zambia’s ruling in the Lumwana redundancy case is a finding that an employer must consult and negotiate with workers before making them redundant.

The decision matters because it sets a precedent that reaches well beyond one copper mine: it tells every Zambian employer that a redundancy is lawful only after genuine consultation, a standard Kwacha News tracks in its courts coverage. On 22 May 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed Lumwana Mining Company’s appeal in Henry Nyambe and 9 Others v Lumwana Mining Company Limited, affirming a duty to consult that the Court held was both contractual and statutory.

The Supreme Court of Zambia dismissed the appeal by Lumwana Mining Company on 22 May 2026, according to the judgment in Henry Nyambe and 9 Others v Lumwana Mining Company Limited. The Court affirmed that an employer must consult and negotiate with employees before effecting a redundancy.

The case was brought by Henry Nyambe and nine other employees of the mine. The judgment records the Supreme Court considered four grounds of appeal advanced by the company, and concluded each of the four grounds failed. In dismissing the appeal, the Court backs the lower court’s finding that the workers were entitled to consultation.

The ten workers were made redundant in October 2019, the judgment records. Each was paid two months’ pay for every year of service, but the employer did not carry out the consultation that the workers’ conditions of service required before the redundancy took effect.

The gap — payment without process — was at the centre of the dispute. The workers’ position, accepted by the courts, held severance pay alone did not satisfy an employer obliged first to consult and negotiate before deciding who would lose their jobs.

The case sits alongside other recent disputes over how electoral and administrative bodies must follow due process, a thread Kwacha News followed when a court stayed an order over the ‘Candle’ symbol. As with that matter, the central question for the judges was whether the correct procedure had been observed before a decision was imposed on those affected.

The High Court had awarded each worker twelve months’ salary in damages, the judgment states. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the duty to consult was both contractual — rooted in the workers’ conditions of service — and statutory under the Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019.

The dual footing is the legal heart of the ruling. By locating the duty in both the contract and the statute, the Supreme Court held an employer cannot contract out of consultation, and cannot treat a redundancy payment as a substitute for the negotiation the law requires.

The Court ordered that each party bear its own costs, the judgment records, declining to shift the legal expenses onto the losing appellant. The damages awarded by the High Court therefore stood, leaving the ten workers with the twelve months’ salary each.

Our inescapable conclusion is that the appeal lacks merit. All four grounds of appeal fail, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal.

— <a href="https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmsc/2026/11/eng@2026-05-22">Supreme Court of Zambia, per Mutuna JS, Henry Nyambe and 9 Others v Lumwana Mining Company Limited, 22 May 2026</a>

Background

The dispute began in October 2019, when Lumwana Mining Company made the ten employees redundant and paid them two months’ pay for each year of service, according to the judgment. The workers argued that their conditions of service obliged the company to consult and negotiate before any redundancy, and that no such process had taken place.

The High Court agreed and awarded each worker twelve months’ salary in damages. Lumwana Mining Company appealed, and the matter reached the Supreme Court, which delivered its decision on 22 May 2026. The wider context is a labour market built around mining: questions of consultation, severance and process recur whenever a large employer restructures, as Kwacha News noted in reporting on the duty of public bodies to follow due process in other recent rulings.

What to watch

The first thing to watch is how employers respond. By confirming that the duty to consult is statutory under the Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019, the Supreme Court gave the obligation a footing that applies across the economy, not only in mining.

The second is enforcement. Future redundancy claims will test how closely the courts read the requirement to consult and negotiate, and whether the twelve-month damages benchmark set in this case guides awards in the disputes that follow.

The third is the mining sector itself. Lumwana is one of Zambia’s large copper operations, and the ruling lands in an industry where workforce restructuring is a recurring feature. How mining employers fold consultation into their redundancy planning will be the practical measure of the judgment’s reach.

Frequently Asked Questions

These are the questions readers have been asking about the Supreme Court ruling. Short answers follow, drawn from the judgment in Henry Nyambe and 9 Others v Lumwana Mining Company Limited and the public record.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Lumwana case?

In short, the Court dismissed Lumwana Mining Company’s appeal. The answer, simply put, is that the judges found an employer must consult and negotiate with workers before a redundancy. According to the judgment of 22 May 2026, all four grounds of appeal failed.

Is an employer legally required to consult before a redundancy?

The answer is yes. Analysis of the judgment shows the Supreme Court held the duty to consult was both contractual and statutory under the Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019, so the requirement is grounded in law as well as in the workers’ conditions of service.

How much were the Lumwana workers awarded?

The key is that the High Court awarded each of the ten workers twelve months’ salary in damages, and the Supreme Court let that award stand. The evidence in the judgment records that the workers had been paid two months’ pay per year of service in October 2019 without the required consultation.

What is the Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019?

In other words, it is the statute that sets out employment standards in Zambia, including the process for a redundancy. According to the Supreme Court, the duty to consult and negotiate before a redundancy is anchored in that Act, which is why the company’s failure to consult was unlawful.

Who pays the legal costs of the appeal?

Simply put, neither side recovers its costs from the other. The judgment shows the Court ordered that each party bear its own costs, so Lumwana Mining Company and the workers each carry their own legal expenses for the appeal.

Sources

Primary source: Supreme Court of Zambia judgment, Henry Nyambe and 9 Others v Lumwana Mining Company Limited, 22 May 2026 (ZambiaLII). Related Kwacha News coverage of due-process rulings: the stay on the ‘Candle’ symbol order and the Constitutional Court clearing M’membe and Banda.