In July 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a ruling that echoes far beyond Washington. At the core of the decision in Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (Case No. 24-7030) was a failed mining venture in Zimbabwe, an arbitration award worth over $90 million, and the difficult terrain of enforcing international judgments against sovereign-backed entities.
This case offers much more than a legal annotation. For those engaged in cross-border mining, particularly in politically complex jurisdictions, it raises critical questions about how contracts are structured, how disputes are resolved, and most importantly how awards can beenforced. This article explores the legal terrain shaped by the ruling, shedding light on the challenges of jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and arbitration enforcement.
The Roots of the Dispute
The story begins in 2007 and 2008, when two Mauritian companies Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. and Amari Nickel Holdings Zimbabwe Ltd. entered into joint venture agreements with Zimbabwe’s state-owned Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC). The objective? To explore and develop nickel and platinum resources in Zimbabwe.
These agreements, structured through memorandums of understanding (MOUs), included arbitration clauses that placed dispute resolution under the International Court of Arbitration in Paris, with Zambia as the designated seat. But by 2010, the deals fell apart. ZMDC unilaterally terminated the agreements, arguing that the required approvals under Zimbabwe’s Mines and Minerals Act had not been obtained rendering the MOUs illegal under Zimbabwe Mines & Minerals Act 1961 Chapter 21.05 as amended
“(2) The Minister, having considered the documents forwarded to him in terms of subsection (1), shall submit them to the President, together with his recommendations thereon, for the President’s approval.
(3) After considering documents submitted to him in terms of subsection (2), the President may authorize the Minister to issue a special mining lease …”
The Mauritian companies-initiated arbitration proceedings, and in 2014, a Zambian tribunal awarded them $42.9 million and $3.9 million, respectively plus 5% annual interest. By 2025, that figure had ballooned to an estimated $93 million. With no voluntary payment forthcoming, the companies obtained a Zambian court judgment in 2019 and sought enforcement in the United States in 2022, invoking the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to go after ZMDC, the Republic of Zimbabwe, and the Chief Mining Commissioner.
Initially, a U.S. district court allowed claims against the Commissioner to proceed but dismissed those against ZMDC and Zimbabwe. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit closed the door completely, ruling that the U.S. courts lacked sufficient jurisdiction.
“Applying either exception here would require us to conflate two distinct concepts arbitral awards and foreign court judgments. We cannot fit a judgment recognition action into a provision that mentions only award confirmation. Nor can we conclude that Defendants intended to waive their immunity by signing a treaty that governs only the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, not the court judgments confirming such awards. Because neither exception applies, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action.” Circuit Judge Childs
Legal Takeaways: Immunity, Jurisdiction, and Arbitration
Sovereign Immunity and the FSIA
The FSIA governs when foreign states and their entities can be sued in U.S. courts. The Mauritian firms argued that Zimbabwe and ZMDC had waived immunity by agreeing to arbitration under the New York Convention and by choosing a signatory country, Zambia, as the seat.
The court disagreed. While the FSIA provides an arbitration exception, it applies specifically to actions seeking to confirm arbitral awards not to actions aimed at enforcing foreign court judgments based on such awards. Moreover, merely signing the New York Convention does not equate to waiving sovereign immunity. For mining firms dealing with state backed partners, this decision reinforces a crucial point: sovereign immunity remains a formidable legal shield, especially in U.S. courts.
Arbitration and the Limits of the New York Convention
The New York Convention is a powerful international tool, enabling the enforcement of arbitration awards across more than 170 countries. However, enforcement is only as effective as the legal mechanisms and asset availability in the target jurisdiction. In this case, the award existed, but ZMDC held no substantial assets in Zambia or the U.S., rendering enforcement effectively moot.
This should prompt sober reflection among mining professionals. Arbitration clauses are not silver bullets. They must be backed by enforceable mechanisms and assetaware strategies.
Jurisdictional Hurdles in Cross-Border Enforcement
The plaintiffs hoped to reach ZMDC’s or Zimbabwe’s assets in the U.S. a tactic not uncommon in international commercial disputes. But the D.C. Circuit’s ruling highlighted the critical distinction between enforcing an arbitration award directly and trying to enforce a foreign judgment that confirms such an award.
That subtle but vital legal distinction cost the plaintiffs their case. For mining companies, it’s a reminder to think strategically not just about where arbitration takes place, but also where awards might ultimately be enforced.
Implications for the Global Mining Sector
The lessons from this case extend well beyond Zimbabwe:
Contract Design Matters:
When engaging with state-owned enterprises, ensure that contracts clearly waive sovereign immunity for enforcement purposes. Choose arbitration seats and enforcement jurisdictions carefully ideally where counterparties hold meaningful assets.
Regulatory Due Diligence Is Essential
ZMDC’s termination of the MOUs was rooted in non-compliance with Zimbabwe’s domestic law. Understanding the host country’s legal environment and obtaining all necessary approvals is not optional; it is a compulsory foundation to investment protection.
Plan for the Long Game
Cross-border enforcement can be a longwinded, not a dash. Litigation strategies must account for jurisdictional barriers and asset tracing challenges. In some cases, multi-jurisdictional enforcement efforts may be necessary.
Geopolitics Can’t Be Ignored
Zimbabwe’s broader economic context marked by over $21 billion in national debt (according to the African Development Bank) complicates enforcement. Even with a favourable award, collecting may prove elusive in states grappling with fiscal pressures or policy instability.
A Broader African Context
This case fits within a wider pattern in African miningwhere resource nationalism and state oversight intersect, and often collide, with foreign investment. Countries like Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have all tightened control over mineral wealth in recent years, often revisiting or terminating contracts that don’t align with shifting national priorities.
For international investors, this environment calls for legal foresight, commercial realism, and often, patience.
More Than just another business case
The Amaplat case is more than a story of a failed venture. It’s a lens into the complexities of doing business with state-linked entities in resource-wealthy but legally nuanced jurisdictions. It underscores the limitations of arbitration as a remedy and highlights the strategic importance of where and how mining contracts are enforced.
Mining professionals, investors, and legal advisors would do well to take note: Sovereign immunity isn’t just a theoretical concept, it’s a real world barrier that can make or break the enforceability of a deal.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Southern African Times.
