SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 MarsdenLR 1376

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ELISABETH REGINA MARIA GABRIELE VON PEZOLD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-323-07/2021]



Petitioner Advocates:John Matthew,Sabin Ann Thomas ,Respondent Advocate: Nitin Nadkarni,Soh Zhen Ning

The court held that ICSID arbitration awards must be recognized as binding judgments under Malaysian law, with sovereign immunity applicable only at the enforcement stage, not recognition.

Headnote:(A) Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States - ICSID Act 1966 - Recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards - The court held that it has jurisdiction to recognize and enforce ICSID awards as binding judgments under Malaysian law, despite the defendant's claims of sovereign immunity and the absence of specific procedural frameworks. (Paras 18, 19, 32, 43, 60)

(B) Sovereign Immunity - The court ruled that sovereign immunity does not apply to recognition proceedings for ICSID awards, only to execution measures. (Paras 32, 43, 49)

(C) Double Recovery - The court found no merit in the defendant's claims of double recovery since the plaintiffs had not yet enforced any compensation or restitution related to the Border Estate. (Paras 96, 105)

(D) Orders for Service Out of Jurisdiction - The court upheld the orders for service out of jurisdiction, affirming that the plaintiffs had made full and frank disclosure of relevant facts. (Paras 120, 143)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, the Von Pezold family, sought recognition of ICSID arbitration awards against the Republic of Zimbabwe for expropriated properties. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction and raised issues of sovereign immunity and double recovery.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed its jurisdiction to recognize ICSID awards under the ICSID Act, stating that sovereign immunity applies only to enforcement, not recognition. The court also found that there was no risk of double recovery at this stage.

Issues: The main issues were the court's jurisdiction over the recognition of ICSID awards, the applicability of sovereign immunity, and the potential for double recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that recognition of ICSID awards is mandatory under the ICSID Convention and that sovereign immunity does not impede this recognition. The court also noted that double recovery concerns arise only when enforcement actions are pursued, which had not occurred.

Result: The plaintiffs' Originating Summons was allowed, and the defendant's application was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. recognition of icsid arbitration awards. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. plaintiffs' application for enforcement of awards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. court's jurisdiction over the case. (Para 14 , 15)
4. defendant's claims of sovereign immunity. (Para 16 , 17)
5. court's analysis of jurisdiction under icsid act. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. sovereign immunity and its implications for recognition. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
7. procedural framework for enforcement of icsid awards. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
8. limitations of enforcement under bits. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87)
9. absence of assets does not bar recognition. (Para 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93)
10. double recovery and its implications. (Para 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119)
11. service out of jurisdiction and disclosure requirements. (Para 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142)
12. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 143)
JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

[1] In this case, the Von Pezold family seeks recognition of ICSID arbitration awards against the Republic of Zimbabwe, a matter intertwining international law with sovereign interests. The heart of the dispute concerns expropriated properties, raising critical questions about the enforceability of international arbitration awards in domestic courts. The Republic of Zimbabwe challenges this Court's jurisdiction, highlighting the complex interplay between international agreements and national laws. My task is to navigate these legal intricacies, ensuring a fair and just resolution in accordance with the principles of law. This judgment will not only resolve a specific dispute but also contribute to the broader dialogue on international law and state sovereignty.

Background Facts

[2] The parties in this matter primarily consist of the Von Pezolds as the Plaintiffs, and the Republic of Zimbabwe as the Defendant.

[3] The Plaintffs originally held an 86.49% interest in three Zimbabwean companies - Border Timbers Limited, Border International (Private) Limited, and Hangani Development Co (Private) Limited - collectively referred to as the "Border Companies." Both the Plaintffs and the Border Companies had substantial investments in three large agricultural estates in Zimbabwe: Forrester Estate, Border Estate, and Makandi Estate.

[4] Between 1980 and 2000, the Defendant carried out land reforms under its Land Reform Programme ("the Land Reforms"), aimed at modifying the ethnic distribution of land ownership. These reforms resulted in the expropriation of various properties associated with the aforementioned estates between 2000 and 2007.

[5] Consequently, two separate but related arbitration cases were initiated. On 6 November 2010, the Plaintffs filed a Request for Arbitration against the Defendant with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID'). The arbitral tribunal was established pursuant to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States ("ICSID Convention"). This arbitration case is designated as ICSID Case No ARB/10/15, on 6 November 2010. They invoked the Germany- Zimbabwe Bilateral Investment Treaty ("German BIT') signed on 29 September 1995, and the Switzerland-Zimbabwe BIT signed on 15 August 1996 ("Swiss BIT'). These arbitration proceedings will be referred to as the "Von Pezold Arbitration".

[6] The Border Companies began the second arbitration, identified as ICSID Case No ARB/10/25, on 3 December 2010 under the Swiss BIT ("Borders Arbitration"). Although the focus of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top