Integrating Mediation into Tax Dispute Resolution Frameworks: A Comparative Study of Zambia, Kenya and South Africa

Abstract

The study examines the integration of mediation in the tax dispute resolution framework in Zambia, with specific focus on whether the current primarily adjudicative system adequately accommodates alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. It examines the legal framework governing tax disputes in Zambia, including administrative objection procedures, the Tax Appeals Tribunal and judicial oversight, and assesses the extent to which these processes incorporate or exclude mediation. The study further undertakes a comparative analysis with Kenya and South Africa to identify how structured alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have been incorporated into tax dispute resolutions systems in comparable jurisdictions. The study finds that Zambia’s tax dispute resolution framework remains largely adversarial and lacks a formalised mediation mechanism, resulting in increased reliance on litigation. In contrast, Kenya and South Africa demonstrate more developed approaches that integrate alternative settlement procedures and administrative alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, thereby improving efficiency, reducing costs and enhancing taxpayer engagement. The study concludes that there is a clear need for reform in Zambia through the introduction of a structured, institutionalised mediation framework within tax dispute resolution, which would promote efficiency, reduce backlog of cases before the tribunal and the court, as well as enhance overall effectiveness of tax administration.