South Africa

South Africa

NO. Year of initiation Short case name Full case name Applicable IIA Arbitral rules Administering institution Summary Details of investment Outcome of original proceedings Respondent State Home State of investor Economic sector Economic subsector Arbitrators Amount claimed Amount awarded (or settled for) Breaches alleged Breaches found Decisions Individual opinions Follow-on proceeding type Follow-on proceeding status Follow-on decisions Follow-on individual opinions ICSID annulment committee members
1 2007 Foresti v. South Africa Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli and others v. Republic of South Africa (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/1) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - South Africa BIT (1998)

Italy - South Africa BIT (1997)
ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Common law mineral rights leased or owned by certain operating companies in which the claimants had interests.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged extinction of certain old order mineral rights held by the claimants by the entry into force of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, and the introduction of compulsory equity divestiture requirements with respect to the investors' shares in certain operating companies.
Common law mineral rights leased or owned by certain operating companies in which the claimants had interests. Discontinued South Africa Italy

Luxembourg
Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Lowe, V. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Matthews, J. M. - Respondent
375.00 mln USD Data not available Direct expropriation

Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Other
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Award dated 4 August 2010 Concurring Statement of Arbitrator Matthews (Award) None None None None None
NO. Year of initiation Short case name Full case name Applicable IIA Arbitral rules Administering institution Summary Details of investment Outcome of original proceedings Respondent State Home State of investor Economic sector Economic subsector Arbitrators Amount claimed Amount awarded (or settled for) Breaches alleged Breaches found Decisions Individual opinions Follow-on proceeding type Follow-on proceeding status Follow-on decisions Follow-on individual opinions ICSID annulment committee members
1 2016 Burmilla Trust and others v. Lesotho The Burmilla Trust, The Josias Van Zyl Family Trust and Josias Van Zyl v. The Kingdom of Lesotho (PCA Case No. 2016-21) SADC Investment Protocol (2006) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Rights under mining leases entered into with the Government.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation by Lesotho of mining leases previously granted to the claimants, which occurred during the construction of a large dam that entailed flooding of certain areas over which the claimants held mining rights.
Rights under mining leases entered into with the Government. Discontinued Lesotho South Africa Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Leon, P. - President

Tselentis, M. - Claimant

Brand, F. D. J. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Direct expropriation Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Procedural Order No. 6 on the Termination of Proceedings dated 2 April 2019 None None None None None None
2 2014 Besserglik v. Mozambique Oded Besserglik v. Republic of Mozambique (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)14/2) Mozambique - South Africa BIT (1997) ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Interests in contractual arrangements with State-owned entities, Mozambiciana de Pescas EE (“Emopesca”) and Sulpesca Lda (“Sulpesca”), through a shareholding in South African company Natal Ocean Trawling (Pty) Ltd; ownership of two fishing vessels.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the claimant’s two fishing vessels and its interests in a joint fishing venture in Mozambique involving two Mozambican State-owned entities (Emopesca and Sulpesca).
Interests in contractual arrangements with State-owned entities, Mozambiciana de Pescas EE (“Emopesca”) and Sulpesca Lda (“Sulpesca”), through a shareholding in South African company Natal Ocean Trawling (Pty) Ltd; ownership of two fishing vessels. Decided in favour of State Mozambique South Africa Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 3 - Fishing and aquaculture Khan, M. A. - President

Fortier, L. Y. - Claimant

von Wobeser, C. - Respondent
91.60 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 28 October 2019 None None None None None None
3 2012 Swissbourgh and others v. Lesotho Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited, Josias Van Zyl, The Josias Van Zyl Family Trust and others v. The Kingdom of Lesotho (PCA Case No. 2013-29) SADC Investment Protocol (2006) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Rights under mining leases entered into with the Government.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s conduct in relation to a SADC Tribunal proceeding over the expropriation of the claimants’ mining leases.
Rights under mining leases entered into with the Government. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Lesotho South Africa Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Williams, D. A. R. - President

Bishop, D. - Unknown

Nienaber, P. M. - Unknown
Data not available 0.00 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Direct expropriation

Other
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Other
Partial Award on Jurisdiction and the Merits dated 18 April 2016

Interpretation Award dated 27 June 2016
Dissenting Opinion by P. M. Nienaber Judicial review by national courts Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the High Court of Singapore on the Set Aside Application dated 14 August 2017 (Judicial review by national courts)

Judgment of the Singapore Court of Appeal dated 27 November 2018 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None