Two ICC Arbitrations, Two Opposite Outcomes: Lessons from the Sundance Cases

The mining sector has become one of the leading wellsprings of international disputes, particularly across the African continent. With substantial amounts often at stake, projects typically unfold over very long-term horizons and involve a wide range of stakeholders, ranging from major international mining companies to state-owned entities established to advance natural resource development strategies.

This trend has triggered a surge in arbitration proceedings involving mining projects, whether they be commercial arbitrations arising out of contracts governing the development and operation of mining assets or investment arbitrations initiated under international investment protection instruments.

The two recent arbitral awards rendered in connection with the Mbalam-Nabeba Iron Ore Project provide a striking illustration of this trend. Indeed, two disputes closely linked to the same cross-border mining project were filed before two separate arbitral tribunals–one opposing Sundance Resources and its subsidiary Congo Iron against the Republic of Congo; the other opposing Sundance Resources and its subsidiary Cam Iron against the Republic of Cameroon. Despite the close factual and commercial nexus between the disputes, the tribunals reached markedly different conclusions, resulting in radically divergent outcomes.

In January 2026, the tribunal hearing the dispute against the Republic of Congo dismissed all claims brought by Sundance and Congo Iron. By contrast, in July 2026, a separate arbitral tribunal ordered the Republic of Cameroon to pay approximately USD 616 million in damages to the Sundance group of companies.

At first glance, the contrast is striking. Some may see it as evidence of the inherent unpredictability of international arbitration in African mining disputes. Others may be tempted to view the award rendered in favor of the Republic of Congo as reflecting a shift towards a less investor-friendly approach in a sector that now lies at the heart of major economic and sovereignty-related considerations.

That being said, the publicly available information warrants a more nuanced analysis.

Both arbitrations arose out of the Mbalam-Nabeba Project, a large-scale iron ore mining project straddling the border between Cameroon and the Republic of Congo. Beyond the mining operations themselves, the development of the project involved the construction of particularly ambitious infrastructure, including a railway line spanning 500+ kilometers to the Cameroonian port of Kribi, a dedicated branch line to the Congolese deposits at Nabeba, and port facilities intended for exporting the iron ore.

Sundance Resources claimed to have invested several hundred million dollars into the development of the project. However, despite extensive technical studies and years spent seeking industrial and financial partners, the project never progressed to the operational phase.

Starting in 2020, the two States progressively turned away from Sundance, entrusting the development of the project to new operators linked to the Chinese group Bestway Finance, thereby triggering the two proceedings initiated on the basis of the agreements governing the relevant mining rights.

In the Congolese component of the project, the dispute originated from the revocation in December 2020 of the mining permit held by Congo Iron covering the Nabeba deposit. The Congolese authorities justified this measure by reference to the project’s lack of meaningful development of the project over several years, as well as alleged breaches of the obligations attached to the permit. Following the revocation, the mining rights were awarded to Sangha Mining Development, a subsidiary of Bestway Finance.

In 2021, Sundance and Congo Iron commenced ICC arbitration proceedings, seeking approximately USD 8.8 billion in damages. Although the parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement through a mediation process conducted in parallel with the arbitration, the terms of which remain confidential, the Republic of Congo failed to comply with its commitments under the settlement. As a result, the arbitration resumed and proceeded to a final award.

According to the publicly available information, the arbitral tribunal found that the Republic of Congo had a legitimate basis for revoking the mining permit on account of the lack of development of the project during the 2016-2018 period. On this basis, all the claims brought by Sundance and Congo Iron were dismissed.

Following the award, Sundance announced that it had filed an application to challenge the award under Section 68 of the English Arbitration Act, at the seat of the arbitration, alleging the existence of serious irregularities.

In the Cameroonian component of the project, the dispute centered primarily on the alleged failure to grant the mining permit claimed by Cam Iron. Another notable feature of the case was Sundance’s successful application for emergency relief, resulting in an order issued by an ICC emergency arbitrator directing Cameroon to refrain from awarding the disputed rights to any third party.

Despite this interim measure, Sundance argued in the merits phase of the arbitration that the Cameroonian authorities had awarded the disputed rights to Cameroon Mining Company (CMC), an entity affiliated with Bestway Finance.

Based on the information currently available on the final award, the tribunal appears to have found not only that Cameroon had committed substantial breaches of the contractual obligations relied upon by the claimants, but also non-compliance with the measures ordered by the ICC emergency arbitrator. On that basis, the tribunal ordered Cameroon to pay approximately USD 616 million in compensation to entities within the Sundance group.

In light of the foregoing, the two awards do not reflect divergent approaches on the part of the two arbitral tribunals, but rather a careful assessment of the specific factual circumstances of each case and a rigorous application of the relevant contractual provisions.

These cases serve as a reminder that contemporary mining disputes are rarely characterized by a (simplistic) conflict between state and private interests. Above all, their outcome depends on the specific terms of the parties’ contractual commitments, how they relate to the applicable regulatory framework, and the parties’ ability to substantiate its allegations, with compelling evidence.

The final chapter of the Sundance saga may have yet to be written, however. Sundance has initiated proceedings to challenge the award rendered in favor of the Republic of Congo. We will be keeping a close watch as future developments unfold.