The Republic of Mozambique (acting through its Attorney General) v Credit Suisse International & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2215 (Comm)
Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) & Ors v Filipe Jacinto Nyusi
29 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 184
Court of Appeal
A company tried to sue the President of Mozambique in England. The court said they didn't properly serve him and that he has special protection from being sued in other countries because of his position.
Key Facts
- •Appellants brought a Part 20 claim against the President of Mozambique (Respondent) for contribution/indemnity and damages.
- •Cockerill J granted permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction, allowing direct service or service via methods permitted under Mozambique law.
- •Appellants attempted service by leaving documents with police at the Presidential Palace and the Office of the President.
- •Respondent was later served via the Mozambique court in April 2023 and contested jurisdiction.
- •The judge ruled that the 2021 service was invalid, the Respondent had immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, and the court lacked jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
Methods of serving a claim form outside the UK are governed by CPR 6.40, 6.42, and Practice Direction 6B.
CPR 6.40, 6.42, Practice Direction 6B
Service must comply with the law of the country where service is effected (CPR 6.40(4)).
CPR 6.40(4)
Heads of State have immunity from jurisdiction under section 20 of the State Immunity Act 1978, subject to exceptions.
State Immunity Act 1978, section 20
The scope of Head of State immunity is informed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and customary international law.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Articles 31 and 39; Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964; customary international law
The 'necessary modification' test determines if exceptions to diplomatic immunity apply to Heads of State; modifications must be strictly necessary.
State Immunity Act 1978, section 20(1)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Service in October 2021 was invalid as it did not comply with Mozambique law, requiring service through the judicial authorities (PD6B para 5.1). The Respondent's state immunity under section 20 of the State Immunity Act 1978 also barred jurisdiction.
Service in October 2021 deemed ineffective.
The method of service used was contrary to Mozambique law, which required service through its judicial authorities. This was evidenced by the FPS email exchange.
Respondent has immunity from jurisdiction.
The Respondent, as Head of State, enjoys immunity under section 20 of the State Immunity Act 1978. The exception for commercial activity in Article 31(1)(c) of the Vienna Convention does not apply as the alleged activity did not occur in the UK.
Similar Cases
GPGC Limited v The Government of the Republic of Ghana
[2023] EWHC 2531 (Comm)
Border Timbers Limited & Anor v Republic of Zimbabwe
[2024] EWHC 58 (Comm)
Louis Emovbira Williams v Federal Government of Nigeria & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3282 (Comm)
Zakir Haroon Mussa v Zubair Osman Gani Issa & Ors
[2024] EWHC 763 (Ch)