## Facts

- Orascom Telecom Holding SAE (Orascom), an Egyptian telecommunications company, entered into a telecommunications joint venture in Chad with La Société des Télécommunications du Tchad (Sotel Tchad) at the request of the Republic of Chad (Chad).
- Orascom invested substantial sums in the project.
- Chad later took steps that forced Orascom out of the venture, including issuing a decree freezing Orascom’s bank accounts and cancelling its operating licence (and related measures affecting operations).
- Orascom commenced ICC arbitration under the joint‑venture agreements (seat in Geneva).
- Although Chad was not originally a party to the joint‑venture agreements, it accepted the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and participated in the arbitration.
- The ICC tribunal issued an award (12 June 2007) requiring Chad to pay Orascom approximately US$3.7 million (plus interest and costs). Chad did not pay.
- Orascom sought to enforce the award in England and applied for a final third‑party debt order (garnishee) against Citibank N.A. in London in respect of monies held for Chad.
- The funds targeted were in a Citibank account in Chad’s name used within the financing arrangements for the Chad–Cameroon oil pipeline project. The structure involved lending and related controls connected with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and the European Investment Bank (EIB).
- The World Bank and the EIB intervened. Over the course of the application, the dispute was narrowed so that the order was pursued in respect of a single account described as the “Borrowers’ Account.”
- Chad resisted execution, relying on enforcement immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 and arguing that the account was not “in use or intended for use for commercial purposes.” Orascom also argued that Chad had waived immunity from execution by participating in ICC arbitration (relying on ICC Rules language), but that argument was secondary at first instance.

## Issues

1. Whether the “Borrowers’ Account” at Citibank was “property… in use or intended for use for commercial purposes” so that the exception in s 13(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978 applied and Chad had no immunity from execution against that property.
2. If immunity otherwise applied, whether Chad had waived immunity from execution by submitting to ICC arbitration (including by operation of the ICC Rules).

## Decision

- The court granted Orascom a final third‑party debt order against Citibank in respect of the Borrowers’ Account.
- The court held that the Borrowers’ Account was property “in use or intended for use for commercial purposes” within s 13(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978, informed by the definition of “commercial purposes” in s 3(3) (including loans and other finance transactions and related financial obligations).
- Because the commercial‑purpose exception applied, Chad could not rely on state immunity from execution to prevent the third‑party debt order over that account.
- The court did not decide Orascom’s alternative waiver argument, because the s 13(4) analysis disposed of the application.

## Legal Principles

- Under the State Immunity Act 1978, state property is generally immune from enforcement measures, but s 13(4) removes immunity where the property is, at the relevant time, in use or intended for use for “commercial purposes.”
- “Commercial purposes” in s 3(3) includes loans and other finance transactions, and obligations connected to them; a court focuses on the function and use of the property, not simply the identity of the owner as a sovereign state.
- A bank account held in the name of a foreign state can be subject to a third‑party debt order if it falls within the s 13(4) exception; the presence of multilateral development‑bank involvement does not, by itself, make an account non‑commercial for SIA purposes.
- Where an account is operated to receive revenues and to service, repay, or support borrowing and other finance arrangements, that use can qualify as “commercial purposes” under the Act.
- If the commercial‑purpose exception applies, the court may grant a third‑party debt order to enforce an arbitral award against the state’s bank debt, without needing to reach any separate argument about waiver of enforcement immunity.

## Conclusion

The High Court (Commercial Court) allowed Orascom to enforce its ICC award by granting a third‑party debt order over Chad’s Citibank Borrowers’ Account, holding that the account’s role in receiving and applying oil‑revenue funds within a loan and repayment structure meant it was used for commercial purposes under ss 13(4) and 3(3) of the State Immunity Act 1978, so Chad had no immunity from execution against that property.


Orascom Telecom Holdings SAE v. Republic of Chad, [2008] EWHC 1841 (QB)