Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and others v Kingdom of Lesotho
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 27 November 2018 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] SGCA 81 |
Citation | [2018] SGCA 81 |
Defendant Counsel | Samuel Sherratt Wordsworth QC (instructed counsel, Essex Court Chambers, London), Tan Beng Hwee Paul, Pang Yi Ching Alessa and David Isidore Tan (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP),J Christopher Thomas QC and Prof N Jansen Calamita (Centre |
Published date | 07 December 2018 |
Hearing Date | 17 May 2018,21 May 2018 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Stephen Richard Jagusch QC (instructed counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP), Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC, Koh Swee Yen, Rajan Menon Smitha, Oh Sheng Loong and Mehaerun Simaa d/o Ravichandra (WongPartnership LLP) |
Date | 27 November 2018 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 149 of 2017 |
Subject Matter | Award,Recourse against award,Jurisdiction,Investor-State arbitration,Arbitral tribunal,Arbitration,International investment law,International Law,Setting aside |
International investment law is a hybrid legal construct uniquely placed at the crossroads of domestic and international law and of private and public law. It has, over the years, become a reliable avenue to which aggrieved investors turn when host States fail to honour obligations owed to them. The dispute resolution mechanisms and substantive rules of investment protection provided for in the growing body of investment treaties enable such investors to bring proceedings against host States for alleged breaches of investment treaty obligations. While these treaties are unusual in the sense that States party to them undertake obligations that may be enforced by private individuals, this is generally subject to the qualification that an investor would
In this appeal, the first to ninth appellants (collectively, “the Appellants”) seek to reverse the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) to set aside a partial final award on jurisdiction and merits issued on 18 April 2016 (“the Award”). The Judge’s decision was made upon the application of the Kingdom of Lesotho (“the Kingdom”) in Originating Summons No 492 of 2016 (“the Setting Aside Application”). The Award was made by an
The Appellants’ complaint in the PCA Arbitration, briefly put, centred on their assertion that the Kingdom had contributed to or facilitated the shutting down (or “shuttering”) of another tribunal (“the SADC Tribunal”), which is a dispute resolution body that was established pursuant to Art 9(1)(g) of the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community (17 August 1992) 32 ILM 116 (entered into force 30 September 1993) (“the SADC Treaty”). The operation of the SADC Tribunal – including its composition, powers, functions, jurisdiction and procedures – was subsequently clarified by the Protocol on Tribunal in the Southern African Development Community (7 August 2000) (entered into force 14 August 2001) (“the Tribunal Protocol”). According to the Appellants, the SADC Treaty read with the Tribunal Protocol enabled aggrieved investors to refer disputes concerning the alleged failures of member States of the SADC (“the SADC Member States”) to comply with their obligations in relation to investments made in the SADC Member States, to the SADC Tribunal for resolution. The Appellants maintained that following the shuttering of the SADC Tribunal, the Kingdom was obliged, but failed, to provide for an alternative forum to determine such claims – in particular, a claim that had already been brought by the Appellants against the Kingdom and which was pending before the SADC Tribunal (“the SADC Claim”) at the time the SADC Tribunal was shuttered.
The SADC Claim involved allegations that the Kingdom had breached its obligations under the SADC Treaty by wrongfully expropriating the Appellants’ leases to mine certain territories located in the Kingdom. For reasons that will become evident later, it is important to note that the Appellants maintain that the relevant
The PCA Tribunal found that the Kingdom had indeed breached various obligations under the SADC Treaty, the Tribunal Protocol and the Investment Protocol. These pertained specifically to what the PCA Tribunal considered was the obligation of the Kingdom to afford the Appellants an effective means of pursuing the SADC Claim. It accordingly granted relief by directing the parties to constitute a new tribunal to hear the SADC Claim. The PCA Tribunal also found that the Kingdom was liable to pay the Appellants’ costs in the arbitration. The Kingdom then commenced the Setting Aside Application. The Judge allowed the application, and set aside the Award in its entirety on the ground that the PCA Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute: see
Having reserved judgment after hearing the submissions of counsel and the
We begin by setting out the facts relevant to this appeal.
The partiesThe first appellant, Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited (“Swissbourgh”), is a company that was incorporated on 12 November 1986 under the laws of the Kingdom by the second appellant, Mr Josias Van Zyl (“Mr Van Zyl”), a South African national. The third and fourth appellants are, respectively, the representatives of the Josias Van Zyl Family Trust (“the JVZF Trust”) and the Burmilla Trust, which are trusts constituted under the laws of the Republic of South Africa. In March 1989, the ownership of Swissbourgh was structured such that the JVZF Trust owned 95% of its shares and Mr Van Zyl held the remaining 5%. In June 1997, the JVZF Trust transferred 90% of the shares in Swissbourgh to the Burmilla Trust. Mr Van Zyl now owns 5% of the Swissbourgh shares, the JVZF Trust owns 5%, and the Burmilla Trust owns the remaining 90%.
Following its incorporation, sometime in or about 1987, Swissbourgh submitted applications for prospecting and mining leases (“the Mining Leases”) in five regions in the Kingdom, namely, the Matsoku, Motete, Orange, Patiseng/Khubelu and Rampai regions. In June 1988, the Kingdom formally approved Swissbourgh’s applications for the Mining Leases.
The fifth to ninth appellants – Matsoku Diamonds (Pty) Limited, Motete Diamonds (Pty) Limited, Orange Diamonds (Pty) Limited, Patiseng Diamonds (Pty) Limited and Rampai Diamonds (Pty) Limited (“Rampai Diamonds”) (collectively, “the Tributees”) – were incorporated in 1988 under the laws of the Kingdom, and served as operating companies responsible for the diamond mining operations in the areas of the Kingdom that they were respectively named after. Between 15 December 1989 and 10 January 1990, the Tributees entered into and registered licensing agreements with Swissbourgh for the sub-lease of the Mining Leases (“the Tributing Agreements”). Under the Tributing Agreements, the Tributees undertook to hold and exercise the mining rights under each of the Mining Leases for each of the eponymous mining areas.
In September 1994, ownership of the Tributees was transferred to the Burmilla Trust (which acquired 99% of the shares in the Tributees) and the JVZF Family Trust (which acquired the remaining 1%). At various times from 1994 to 1997, Swissbourgh and the Tributees assigned to the Burmilla Trust their rights relating to any claims against the Kingdom arising out of the latter’s purported interference with the Mining Leases. The PCA Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction
The disputes that led to the PCA Arbitration and the subsequent setting-aside proceedings arise out of a protracted saga stretching over two decades. The disagreement between the parties revolves around two distinct matters: first, the Kingdom’s alleged expropriation of the Appellants’ Mining Leases (“the Expropriation Dispute”), and second, the shuttering of the SADC Tribunal without the provision of an alternative forum to determine the pending SADC Claim (“the Shuttering Dispute”).
The expropriation of the Mining LeasesIn 1986, the Kingdom embarked on the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (“the LHWP”), a large-scale commercial joint venture with South Africa. The LHWP required the Kingdom to divert water from the Orange-Senqu River in the Kingdom to South Africa. In exchange, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Ng Kok Wai
...and [83]; Wong Yuh Lan v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 845 at [13] and [24]; Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd v Kingdom of Lesotho [2019] 1 SLR 263 at Interpreting “jurisdiction” to mean “extraterritorial jurisdiction” accords with the Second Part of s 178 which clearly deals with extra......
-
BAZ v BBA and others and other matters
...has been recently considered by the Court of Appeal in obiter in Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and others v Kingdom of Lesotho [2018] SGCA 81 (“Swissbourgh”), at [207]. Citing the dissenting opinion of Keith Highet in Waste Management, Inc v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF......
-
Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc
...to an arbitration seated in Singapore under an investment treaty. In Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and others v Kingdom of Lesotho [2019] 1 SLR 263 (“Lesotho CA”), the Kingdom of Lesotho succeeded at first instance in setting aside in part a final award issued in an arbitration under ......
-
Johannesburg Society of Advocates v Edeling
...Republic of South Africa and Others 1999 (2) SA 279 (T): referred to Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and Others v Kingdom of Lesotho [2018] SGCA 81: referred Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd v LHDA D 2000 Lesotho LR 432 (CA): referred to. Case Information J Suttner SC (with P Cirone)......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...Ltd v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic [2016] 5 SLR 536; Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd v Kingdom of Lesotho [2019] 1 SLR 263. 28 Kho Jabing v Attorney-General [2016] 3 SLR 1273; Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850. 29 PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Lt......
-
Litigation
...Sek Keong CJ; Olivine Capital Pte Ltd v Chia Chin Yan [2014] SGCA 19 at [44]; Swissborough Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd v Kingdom of Lesotho [2018] SGCA 81 at [83], per Menon CJ. Under Australian law there is a further matter to consider, namely, whether the public interest in the eicient use of......
-
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGAPORE LAW: A BICENTENNIAL RETROSPECTIVE1
...1946 UNTS 3 (23 August 1978; entry into force 6 November 1996). 252 1155 UNTS 331 (23 May 1969; entry into force 27 January 1980). 253 [2019] 1 SLR 263. 254 18 August 2006; entry into force 16 April 2010. 255 32 ILM 116 (17 August 1992; entry into force 30 September 1993). 256 UN Doc A/40/1......
-
FINDING CLARITY AMIDST CONFUSION
...Ltd v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic [2016] 5 SLR 536 and Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd v Kingdom of Lesotho [2019] 1 SLR 263. 5 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, “Investment Policy Hub” website https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/ (accessed 14 De......