HARARE / WASHINGTON — A protracted international legal dispute pitting two Mauritian mining companies against Zimbabwe’s state-owned mining parastatal has escalated to the United States Supreme Court, marking the latest chapter in a battle that has spanned more than a decade and multiple jurisdictions.
According to ZimGazette, Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. and Amari Nickel Ltd. have petitioned the US Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which last year dismissed their attempt to enforce an arbitration award against the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC) and the Zimbabwean state.
The Mauritian firms are seeking to recover an arbitral award that has grown to approximately US$93 million, inclusive of interest accrued over 11 years.
Jurisdictional setback in Washington
In July 2025, the D.C. Circuit ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the enforcement action, effectively blocking the companies from pursuing Zimbabwean assets in the United States. The court found that Zimbabwe and its mining entities were shielded by sovereign immunity under the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
Undeterred, Amaplat and Amari filed a petition for certiorari on December 12, urging the Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s interpretation of sovereign immunity and international arbitration law.
Steven K. Davidson of Steptoe LLP, who represents the companies, said the firms were prepared for a long fight.
“We will continue to litigate against Zimbabwe until the claim is fully paid,” Davidson told Law360. “The arbitral award and the Zambian judgment recognising it have already been recognised in Canada, and we will pursue similar enforcement efforts in other jurisdictions, as well as in the United States.”
Zimbabwe’s legal representatives declined to comment on the latest development.
Core legal argument
At the heart of the Supreme Court petition is the interpretation of the New York Convention, the international treaty governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
Amaplat and Amari argue that by signing the New York Convention and agreeing to arbitrate disputes in another signatory state, Zimbabwe implicitly waived its sovereign immunity in enforcement proceedings. They contend that the D.C. Circuit departed from long-standing precedent, particularly rulings of the Second Circuit, which have recognised such an implied waiver under the FSIA.
The companies described the issue as one of “critical international importance,” warning that the lower court’s approach undermines the enforceability of international arbitration awards involving state-owned entities.
“Lower courts, other than the panel below, have uniformly reasoned that by joining the New York Convention and submitting to arbitration in another Convention state, a member state impliedly waives its sovereign immunity,” the petition states.
Origins of the dispute
The dispute dates back to the late 2000s, when ZMDC entered into joint venture agreements with Amaplat and Amari to develop nickel and platinum mining projects in Zimbabwe.
In 2010, Zimbabwe moved to terminate the agreements, arguing that they had been improperly executed and lacked the requisite government approvals. The Mauritian firms disputed this claim and initiated arbitration proceedings before the International Chamber of Commerce, seated in Zambia.
In 2014, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of the investors, ordering ZMDC to pay US$42.9 million to Amaplat and US$3.9 million to Amari, together with interest and costs.
The companies subsequently obtained a judgment from the Zambian High Court recognising the award under the New York Convention, allowing it to be enforced as if it were a domestic court order.
A long legal trail
The case has followed a complex path across borders:
-
2014: An ICC tribunal in Zambia issues an award totalling US$46.8 million plus 5% annual interest.
-
2019: The Zambian High Court authorises enforcement of the award, opening the door to asset seizure.
-
2020–2024: ZMDC continues to challenge enforcement as interest accumulates.
-
2025: The total claim reaches about US$93 million due to compounded interest.
-
2025: The US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismisses the enforcement action on jurisdictional grounds.
Broader implications
Legal analysts say the case highlights the persistent difficulties of enforcing international arbitration awards against state-owned enterprises, particularly in jurisdictions where sovereign immunity is robustly asserted.
For Zimbabwe, the outcome could have broader implications for investor confidence in the mining sector, which remains a cornerstone of the country’s economy. For the Mauritian firms, the Supreme Court appeal represents another attempt to unlock enforcement avenues after years of litigation across Africa, North America and beyond.
The US Supreme Court has yet to indicate whether it will hear the case. If accepted, the ruling could clarify how US courts treat sovereign immunity in the context of international arbitration — a decision likely to resonate far beyond this long-running dispute.
