Zambia Court of Appeal: Maria Zaloumis v Zvhikonyo Mahombe Injunction Denied

• The Zambia Court of Appeal refused an injunction application by Maria Zaloumis in an election dispute.
• Maria Zaloumis had sought to preserve the status quo in a Zambia National Farmers Union election.
• The Court acknowledged that Zaloumis presented triable issues but failed to prove irreparable harm.
• This decision, cited as ZMCA 158 2026, emphasizes the critical need for robust evidence of irreparable harm for injunctions in Zambia.

Lawyers advising clients on injunction applications in Zambia must ensure robust evidence of irreparable harm, as merely demonstrating triable issues is insufficient to secure interim relief and preserve the status quo, as evidenced by this Court of Appeal decision.

The Zambia Court of Appeal recently delivered a significant ruling in the case of Maria Zaloumis v Zvhikonyo Mahombe and Ors, identified as (086/2026) [2026] ZMCA 158. This decision, handed down on October 27, 2026, centered on an application for an injunction stemming from a contentious election dispute within the Zambia National Farmers Union. Maria Zaloumis, participating as both a member of the Union and a presidential candidate, sought judicial intervention against Zvhikonyo Mahombe, who was declared the winning candidate for the presidential position.

The core of the legal challenge involved Ms. Zaloumis's attempt to secure an interim injunction. Such an order would typically serve to maintain the existing state of affairs, or "status quo," pending the full resolution of the underlying election dispute. However, the appellate court ultimately declined to grant the requested relief.

This outcome underscores the stringent requirements for obtaining injunctive orders in Zambian jurisprudence, particularly when the preservation of the status quo is at stake. The Court of Appeal's judgment provides crucial guidance on the evidentiary burden applicants must meet.

In its deliberation on the Maria Zaloumis v Zvhikonyo Mahombe injunction application, the Zambia Court of Appeal meticulously assessed the arguments presented by the applicant. The court acknowledged that Ms. Zaloumis had successfully demonstrated the existence of "triable issues." This signifies that her claim was not frivolous or vexatious and presented genuine legal questions that warranted a full hearing.

Despite establishing these triable issues, a critical hurdle remained for Ms. Zaloumis. The Court found that she failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove "irreparable harm." This legal standard requires an applicant to show that without the injunction, they would suffer damage that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary means or other remedies at a later stage.

The absence of compelling proof of irreparable harm proved decisive. The Court of Appeal concluded that, without this essential element, the application for an injunction could not succeed, thereby refusing to grant the order that would have preserved the status quo in the Zambia National Farmers Union election dispute. This highlights that merely raising legitimate concerns is not enough to secure interim relief.

The ruling in Maria Zaloumis v Zvhikonyo Mahombe (086/2026) [2026] ZMCA 158 reinforces a fundamental principle governing injunction applications in Zambia. For an interim injunction to be granted, courts typically require applicants to satisfy a two-pronged test: first, demonstrating that there are serious questions to be tried (triable issues), and second, proving that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. The balance of convenience is also often considered, but the failure on the irreparable harm limb is often fatal.

This decision from the Court of Appeal Zambia injunction jurisdiction serves as a clear reminder that the bar for proving irreparable harm is substantial. It is not enough for an applicant to merely assert potential damage; concrete evidence must be presented to convince the court that the harm is indeed beyond repair through other legal avenues. The court's refusal to preserve the status quo in this instance underscores the judiciary's cautious approach to granting such powerful interim orders.

The judgment, specifically cited as ZMCA 158 2026, will undoubtedly be referenced in future cases involving similar requests for interim relief. It clarifies that even in situations where there appears to be a legitimate dispute, the absence of a strong showing of irreparable harm will lead to the denial of an injunction.

The outcome of the Maria Zaloumis v Zvhikonyo Mahombe injunction case carries significant implications for legal practitioners and litigants across Zambia. It unequivocally establishes that while demonstrating "triable issues injunction application" is a necessary first step, it is far from sufficient to secure interim relief. The Court of Appeal's decision serves as a stark reminder that robust evidence of "irreparable harm" is paramount.

Lawyers advising clients on injunction applications in Zambia must ensure robust evidence of irreparable harm, as merely demonstrating triable issues is insufficient to secure interim relief and preserve the status quo, as evidenced by this Court of Appeal decision. This ruling from the Court of Appeal Zambia injunction jurisdiction sets a high evidentiary standard, emphasizing that the potential for financial compensation or other remedies at a later stage will often preclude the granting of an injunction if irreparable harm cannot be definitively proven.

Therefore, parties seeking to prevent a change in the status quo, particularly in contentious matters like election disputes within organizations such as the Zambia National Farmers Union, must meticulously prepare their case to meet this stringent requirement. The ZMCA 158 2026 judgment reinforces the principle that interim injunctions are extraordinary remedies, reserved for situations where the potential for irreversible damage is clear and compelling.

Lawyers advising clients on injunction applications in Zambia must ensure robust evidence of irreparable harm, as merely demonstrating triable issues is insufficient to secure interim relief and preserve the status quo, as evidenced by this Court of Appeal decision.

Source: Original reporting via Zambia Court of Appeal