This research gives a detailed discussion on the role of the Zambian courts in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The paper comments on the recent ruling of the Zambian High Court in Vitima Lungu and Others v Itwi Likando Liwena 2026/HPC/0063 in which the court stayed proceedings (litigation) and referred the matter to ADR. This paper has established that the decision is sound as it reinforces the constitutional mandate of the courts in the role of ADR and promotes prompt settlement of matters in the conveyancing process. The demerit of the decision is that it leaves provision for parties to re-apply to court to re-litigate the matter if ADR fails, a route that may lead to delayed disposal of cases. The paper analyses the Court’s reasoning in light of Article 118(2)(d) of the Constitution of Zambia, the Arbitration Act No. 19 of 2000, and the High Court Rules, which collectively mandate the
promotion of alternative dispute resolution. It examines the enforceability of arbitration clauses and the court’s prima facie duty to stay proceedings where a valid arbitration agreement exists, unless shown to be null, void, inoperative, or incapable of performance. The study situates the decision within Zambia’s broader constitutional and statutory framework that encourages negotiation, mediation, and arbitration as mechanisms for enhancing access to justice and reducing court congestion. Overall, the judgment affirms judicial support for ADR while revealing procedural concerns where unsuccessful ADR may prolong dispute resolution.

Keywords: Litigation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration, Mediation, Negotiation