Sahara Energy Resource Ltd v Societe Nationale de Raffinage SA (Sonara) [2026] EWCA Civ 54 (06 February 2026)

Sahara Energy Resource Ltd v Societe Nationale de Raffinage SA (Sonara) [2026] EWCA Civ 54 (06 February 2026)

The Joint Report was a binding agreement covering the Undisputed Claims (Incremental Interest and FX Differential), as its wording and structure indicated agreement as to liability and quantum, and no conditionality on Government approval was expressed. The Clause 26 indemnity did not apply to Penal Charges, as its scope was limited to losses arising from exercise of remedies under Clause 26, not general external charges.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 54
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sahara Energy Resource Limited; Defendant/respondent: Société Nationale de Raffinage S. A. (Sonara)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment for Sahara on Undisputed Claims; remainder of appeal and respondent's notice dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contractual Interpretation, Damages, Indemnity Clauses, Limitation Periods
Contract Law Commercial Law Contractual Interpretation Damages Indemnity Clauses Limitation Periods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sahara Energy Resource Limited

Claimant/appellant

Société Nationale de Raffinage S. A. (Sonara)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Joint Report constituted a binding agreement for payment of Incremental Interest and FX Differential claims
  2. 2 Interpretation and scope of Clause 26 indemnity in the 2013 Contract
  3. 3 Application of Limitation Act 1980 section 29(5)

Ratio Decidendi

The Joint Report was a binding agreement covering the Undisputed Claims (Incremental Interest and FX Differential), as its wording and structure indicated agreement as to liability and quantum, and no conditionality on Government approval was expressed. The Clause 26 indemnity did not apply to Penal Charges, as its scope was limited to losses arising from exercise of remedies under Clause 26, not general external charges.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment for Sahara on Undisputed Claims; remainder of appeal and respondent's notice dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for Sahara in relation to Undisputed Amounts listed in the Joint Report
  • Appeal dismissed as to Penal Charges