Zimbabwe mining dispute goes to US supreme court; ‘we will continue to litigate against’ Harare government

By Business Correspondent

A DECADES-LONG international legal battle between two Mauritian companies and Zimbabwe’s mining parastatal is now before the United States Supreme Court, with the companies vowing “to continue to litigate against Zimbabwe until (our) claim is fully paid”.

In July last year, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D. C. Court) dismissed the case brought by Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. and Amari Nickel against the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC).

The DC court cited a fundamental lack of jurisdiction as the primary basis for its decision, effectively blocking the Mauritian companies from enforcing their $93 million arbitration award in the United States.

However, Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. and Amari Nickel Ltd. filed a certiorari petition on December 12, asking the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision that blocked their lawsuit to enforce the 11-year-old arbitral award against Zimbabwe.

The claim has now increased to US$93 million, including interest.

Steven K. Davidson of Steptoe LLP, representing the companies, told Law360, “We will continue to litigate against Zimbabwe until its claim is fully paid.

“The arbitral award and Zambian judgment were recently recognized in Canada. We will continue similar efforts in other jurisdictions, as well as the United States, until fully paid.”

Zimbabwe’s counsel declined comment.

The Supreme Court petition argues that the Second Circuit has long held that countries signing the New York Convention — the treaty governing recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards — implicitly waive immunity in actions enforcing foreign judgments that confirm awards.

Amaplat and Amari contend that the D.C. Circuit ignored this principle, rejecting the notion that Zimbabwe’s participation in arbitration triggers the implied waiver exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). They called the matter “of critical international importance.”

“Lower courts, other than the panel below, have uniformly reasoned that, by joining the New York Convention and submitting to arbitration in another New York Convention state, a member state impliedly waives its sovereign immunity under the FSIA in an action to enforce a foreign arbitral award,” the petition states.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute traces back to joint ventures in the late 2000s between Zimbabwe’s state-owned ZMDC and the Mauritian firms to develop nickel and platinum mines.

Zimbabwe attempted to terminate the deals in 2010, prompting arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in Zambia.

A 2014 tribunal ruled ZMDC liable for $42.9 million to Amaplat and $3.9 million to Amari, plus interest and costs.

The companies later obtained a Zambian court judgment recognizing the award under the New York Convention, empowering them to enforce it as a local court order.

In 2022, Amaplat and Amari filed suit in the U.S., naming ZMDC, the Chief Mining Commissioner, and Zimbabwe itself as defendants.

Timeline of the Legal Proceedings

The dispute followed a complex legal trajectory spanning multiple jurisdictions:

2014: The International Court of Arbitration in Zambia issues the initial award of $46.8 million plus 5% annual interest

2019: The Zambian High Court grants the Mauritian companies permission to enforce the arbitration award, allowing for potential seizure of ZMDC assets

2020-2024: ZMDC continues to contest the award while interest accumulates

2025: By July, the total amount owed reaches approximately $93 million due to compounded interest over 11 years

2025: The US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, dismisses the case (No. 24-7030) citing jurisdictional issues

The decade-long legal battle reflects the challenges of enforcing international arbitration awards, particularly when state-owned enterprises are involved. Zimbabwe’s mining authorities maintained throughout the proceedings that the original agreements had been improperly executed and lacked necessary governmental approvals.