Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:12:28.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cortec Mining Kenya Limited, Cortec (Pty) Limited and Stirling Capital Limited v. Republic of Kenya

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  22 October 2018 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Evidence — Corruption — Bad faith — Bribery — Whether the State may prove allegations of bad faith or corruption without putting the allegations to witnesses — Whether the review of mining licences was a response to the refusal to pay a bribe

Jurisdiction — Dispute — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether there was no dispute because the State had merely suspended rather than revoked the mining licence

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Cooling-off period — Whether each party had consented to arbitration — Whether the investors had satisfied the three-month cooling-off period required under the BIT through negotiations and municipal legal proceedings

Jurisdiction — Investment — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Origin of capital — Salini test — Bad faith — Whether there was no protected investment because the investors were shell companies for investment from a third State — Whether the investment satisfied the criteria of risk, duration and contribution to the economic development of the host State — Whether jurisdiction should be declined due to allegations of bad faith

Jurisdiction — Investment — Legality — Municipal law — Intangible assets — Environmental impact assessment — Proportionality — Bad faith — Whether there was an implied requirement that investments be in accordance with the laws of the host State — Whether a prospecting licence and data generated thereunder qualified for protection if the licence did not legally permit the investor to generate revenue in the host State — Whether licences acquired contrary to the requirement of an environmental impact statement and other municipal protections were void ab initio under municipal law — Whether the tribunal should accept rulings of the municipal courts — Whether it was proportionate to decline jurisdiction in the light of the significance of the legal obligations, the seriousness of the investor’s conduct and whether those factors resulted in a sufficiently significant violation of the interests of the host State — Whether protection of a mining licence would have been denied on the merits for want of legality and good faith in the exercise of a State official’s discretion even if it was not void ab initio under municipal law

Costs — Costs follow the event — Reduction — Whether the claim for costs was manifestly excessive — Whether the conduct of the party seeking costs warranted a reduction due to unproven claims of corruption

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)