Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Frazer Solar GmbH v. Kingdom of Lesotho

New
Short Name:

Frazer Solar v. Lesotho

Case Type:
Contract (Investor–State)
Seat of Arbitration:
Johannesburg (South Africa)
Applicable Treaty:
Applicable Legal Instruments:
Economic Sector:
Energy (power Generation)
Outcome:
In Favour of Claimant(s)
Amount of Damages:
US $55,090,000
Other Remedy:
The Tribunal ordered Respondent to pay Claimant €50M in damages, €754,273 in pre-award interest, post-award interest at 1.7% per annum, and costs of the arbitration.

Available documents

28 Jan 2020
Award
Document provided by: IAReporter
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Award
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
Vincent Maleka
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Henry Pannell, Liberty Mncube
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Robert John Frazer
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Frazer Solar GmbH, FTI Consulting, Lesotho, Peterson Hertog & Associates, Withers
Document Summary
Award
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural History and Jurisdiction

This document is a final Arbitration Award rendered by a Sole Arbitrator, Vincent Maleka SC, in a dispute between Frazer Solar GmbH (Claimant) and the Kingdom of Lesotho (Respondent). The arbitration was conducted under the rules of the Association of Arbitrators (Southern Africa) NPC. A key procedural feature of the case was the Respondent's complete non-participation, having failed to respond to the notice of arbitration or file any submissions.

The Arbitrator first addressed his jurisdiction to proceed in the Respondent's absence. He affirmed his authority, relying on Article 30 of the applicable rules, which permits an arbitrator to continue proceedings where a party, after due notice, fails to participate. The Arbitrator also determined that South Africa's International Arbitration Act, 2017, incorporating the UNCITRAL Model Law, governed the proceedings, notwithstanding the Supply Agreement's reference to the domestic Arbitration Act, 1965. This conclusion was based on the international character of the dispute, as both parties were domiciled outside South Africa, the place of performance was in Lesotho, and the seat of arbitration was Johannesburg.

Tribunal's Findings on the Merits

The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a Supply Agreement dated 24 September 2018 for a renewable energy project in Lesotho. The Arbitrator found that the Kingdom of Lesotho had committed material breaches of the agreement. The central breach was the failure to execute the necessary Finance Agreement, which was a prerequisite for the project's implementation. The evidence, primarily from the Claimant's witness Mr. Frazer, indicated that Lesotho's Minister of Finance refused to sign the financing documents because he had committed to a competing renewable energy project in Mafeteng. The Arbitrator concluded that this failure constituted a breach of several warranty clauses (including 17.1.1, 17.1.3, and 17.2) that went to the root of the Supply Agreement, entitling the Claimant to terminate the contract and claim damages.

However, the Arbitrator dismissed the Claimant's claim for breach of Clause 18 of the Supply Agreement, which granted the Claimant a right of first opportunity for "all other renewable energy ... opportunities." The Arbitrator reasoned that the competing Mafeteng project was not an "other" or "additional" project but a direct rival whose selection caused the demise of the Claimant's project. Therefore, Lesotho's support for the Mafeteng project did not constitute a breach of this specific clause.

Analysis of Damages and Award

Based on these findings, the Arbitrator proceeded to assess the quantum of damages. The Claimant had advanced a main claim for liquidated damages of €50 million (under Clause 12) plus damages for loss of opportunity valued at €52.1 million. The Arbitrator awarded the €50 million in liquidated damages, finding the amount to be a reasonable and quantifiable pre-estimate of the loss flowing from the termination of the Supply Agreement. This was supported by expert evidence showing that the actual loss of profit was slightly higher, at €51.6 million.

Consistent with his finding on the merits, the Arbitrator dismissed the claim for €52.1 million related to the loss of opportunity from the Mafeteng project. The final award directed the Kingdom of Lesotho to pay the Claimant: (i) liquidated damages of €50 million; (ii) pre-award interest of €754,273; (iii) post-award interest at a rate of 1.7% per annum on the principal sum from the date of the award until payment; and (iv) the costs of the arbitration, including the Claimant's legal and expert fees, as well as the Arbitrator's fees.
23 Sep 2020
Order of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales
Document provided by: Jus Mundi
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United Kingdom
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Order of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


14 Oct 2020
Order of the High Court of South Africa
Document provided by: Jus Mundi
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the High Court of South Africa
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
South Africa
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Order of the High Court of South Africa
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


3 May 2021
Order of the High Court of South Africa
Document provided by: Jus Mundi
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the High Court of South Africa
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
South Africa
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Order of the High Court of South Africa
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


29 Dec 2021
Judgment of the High Court of South Africa
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the High Court of South Africa
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Seena Yacoob
Claimant's counsel
Jeremy J. Gauntlett, Anthony Bisho
Respondent's counsel
Jonathan Blou, Jason Mitchell, Ilze Dubava, Ingrid Cloete, Nick Ferreira
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
South Africa
Print reporter
Entities
Fraser Solar GmbH, Werksmans Attorneys, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, Molefe Dlepu Attorneys, Lesotho, Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority, Lesotho Highlands Development Authority, Standard Bank of South Africa, etersen Hertog Attorneys
Document Summary
Judgment of the High Court of South Africa
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture and Background

This judgment arises from an urgent application filed by Fraser Solar GmbH (FSG) before the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division. Following an arbitral award of €50 million in its favor against the Kingdom of Lesotho, FSG sought to enforce the award by attaching assets, specifically funds held by the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) intended for Lesotho under a bilateral water treaty. FSG sought an order declaring TCTA in contempt of prior court orders and mandating that the attached funds remain frozen pending the determination of a separate stay application initiated by Lesotho.

Parties' Positions and Legal Issues

The principal issue before the Court was whether the application warranted urgent adjudication and whether the respondents were in contempt of the interim orders previously issued by Matojane J and Strydom J. FSG contended that the prior orders established a status quo freezing the funds, and that TCTA’s continued payments to Lesotho and the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA) constituted contempt. The respondents countered that no undertaking had ever been made to halt the flow of treaty-mandated funds to Lesotho, and that the prior orders contained no explicit directive freezing the accounts.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Judge Yacoob dismissed the applicant's claim of urgency. While acknowledging that contempt proceedings are inherently urgent, the Court held that this alone does not entitle an applicant to bypass standard procedural queues absent a showing of irreparable harm. The Court observed that the financial transfers from TCTA to Lesotho are governed by a treaty with no end date, ensuring a continuous flow of funds. Consequently, FSG would not suffer irreparable harm, as its potential recovery was merely delayed rather than permanently defeated.

Furthermore, the Court found no substantive basis for the contempt allegations. The Court emphasized that the prior interim orders lacked any explicit provision freezing the bank accounts or prohibiting ongoing payments to Lesotho. The Court also noted that writs of attachment do not constitute court orders capable of sustaining a contempt finding in this context.

Dispositive Order

The High Court ruled that the application was not urgent and struck it from the roll. FSG was ordered to bear the costs of the Kingdom of Lesotho, TCTA, and LHDA, including the costs of two and three counsel where employed.
9 Nov 2022
Judgment of the High Court of Lesotho [2022] LSHC 284
Document provided by: Jus Mundi
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the High Court of Lesotho [2022] LSHC 284
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
Lesotho
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Judgment of the High Court of Lesotho [2022] LSHC 284
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


31 Aug 2023
Judgment of the High Court of South Africa
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the High Court of South Africa
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Jacobus Johannes Strijdom
Claimant's counsel
Matthew Chaskalson, Deborah Watson, Ntokozo Qwale
Respondent's counsel
Steven Budlender, Nick Ferreira, P. M. Pillay, Mfundo Salukazana
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
South Africa
Print reporter
Entities
Frazer Solar GmbH, Tunnel Authority, Lesotho Highlands Development Authority, Standard Bank of South Africa, Lesotho, South Africa, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, Petersen Hertog Attorneys
Document Summary
Judgment of the High Court of South Africa
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a judgment rendered by the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg) concerning an application by the Kingdom of Lesotho (Applicant) against Frazer Solar GmbH (First Respondent) and others. Lesotho sought to rescind a prior ex parte order of the Court that had recognized and enforced an arbitral award in favor of Frazer Solar. Concurrently, Lesotho applied to set aside the underlying arbitral award pursuant to Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, as enacted in South Africa by the International Arbitration Act 15 of 2017.

Principal Legal Issues

The Court was tasked with determining two primary issues. First, whether grounds existed to rescind the enforcement order, specifically addressing whether the Lesotho Minister who signed the underlying supply agreement possessed the requisite authority to bind the State to arbitration, and whether the Court lacked jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity. Second, the Court examined whether Article 34(3) of the Model Law affords domestic courts the discretion to condone non-compliance with the strict three-month time limit for setting aside an arbitral award, and if not, whether such an absolute time bar is constitutionally valid under South African law.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Court dismissed the rescission application, finding that the Minister possessed at least ostensible authority to conclude the arbitration agreement. Applying the doctrine of separability, the Court held that the arbitration clause remained extant and binding despite Lesotho's challenges to the validity of the broader supply agreement. Furthermore, the Court rejected the sovereign immunity defense, noting that Lesotho had waived immunity by agreeing to arbitrate in South Africa, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Court at the time the enforcement order was granted.

Regarding the set-aside application, the Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Model Law's travaux préparatoires and comparative international jurisprudence (including decisions from Singapore, New Zealand, and Canada). The Court concluded that Article 34(3) imposes a rigid, substantive time bar that cannot be extended or condoned by domestic courts, except under the express statutory exception for fraud or corruption. Addressing the constitutional challenge, the Court held that this strict limitation on the right of access to courts is reasonable and justifiable. It serves the legitimate and internationally recognized purposes of finality, expedition, and harmonization in international commercial arbitration.

Decision

The High Court dismissed Lesotho's application in its entirety. The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of multiple counsel for the First Respondent and the Seventh Respondent (the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development).
22 May 2026
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Mahube Betty Molemela, Lebogang Modiba, Esther Steyn, Piet A. Koen, John Eldrid Smith, Fikile Mokgohloa, Tati Moffat Makgoka
Claimant's counsel
Matthew Chaskalson, Duncan Watson, Ntokozo Sbo Qwabe
Respondent's counsel
Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, I. Goodman, Nick Ferreira, Pranisha Maharaj-Pillay
Other counsel
G. Georgiades, Nikhiel Deeplal
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
South Africa
Print reporter
Entities
Frazer Solar GmbH, Lesotho, Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority, Lesotho Highlands Develoment Authority, Arbitration Foundation of South Africa, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, Webbers Attorneys, Petersen Hertog Attorneys, Honey Attorneys, State Attorney Johannesburg, State Attorney Bloemfontein
Document Summary
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa addresses an appeal by the Kingdom of Lesotho (KOL) against a High Court decision. The High Court had dismissed the KOL's applications to (i) rescind a default judgment that enforced an international arbitral award in favour of Frazer Solar GmbH (FSG), and (ii) set aside the arbitral award itself.

The Court's Analysis and Decision

The Court delivered three separate judgments. The majority judgment, penned by Mokgohloa and Smith JJA, bifurcated the appeal into two primary issues: the rescission of the enforcement order and the setting aside of the arbitral award.

On the first issue, the Court upheld the appeal regarding the rescission application. It found that the KOL had satisfied the common law requirements for rescission by providing a reasonable explanation for its default in the enforcement proceedings and demonstrating a bona fide defence with prima facie prospects of success. The Court accepted the KOL's explanation that notices were intercepted and concealed. The bona fide defence was grounded in the argument that the underlying supply agreement, which contained the arbitration clause, was invalid ab initio. The Court found compelling evidence that the agreement was concluded without the requisite authority from the Minister of Finance or the Cabinet and in breach of Lesotho's procurement and financial laws. Consequently, the High Court's enforcement order was rescinded.

On the second issue, the Court dismissed the appeal concerning the application to set aside the arbitral award. The central question was whether the three-month time limit for set-aside applications under Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, as incorporated into South Africa's International Arbitration Act, was absolute. The Court held that the time limit is peremptory and does not permit judicial condonation, except for the statutorily defined case of fraud or corruption, which was not the basis of the KOL's challenge. The Court further determined that this strict time limit constitutes a reasonable and justifiable limitation on the constitutional right of access to courts, as it serves the crucial objectives of finality, certainty, and predictability in international commercial arbitration. The Court also held that the judgment of the Lesotho High Court, which had declared the supply agreement invalid, had no binding effect on the South African proceedings, as supervisory jurisdiction vested exclusively with the courts at the seat of arbitration.

Operative Order

The Supreme Court of Appeal ordered the rescission of the High Court's enforcement order, thereby allowing the Kingdom of Lesotho to defend the enforcement application. However, it dismissed the appeal to set aside the arbitral award, holding that the application was time-barred.
Case Summary
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Case Overview

In Frazer Solar v. Lesotho, the dispute arose from an alleged breach of contract by the Kingdom of Lesotho. The claimant, Frazer Solar GmbH, a German company, entered into a Supply Agreement with Lesotho on September 24, 2018, for the provision and installation of up to 40,000 solar water heating systems, 1 million LED lights, and 350,000 solar lanterns. The project, valued at €100 million, was intended to advance Lesotho's renewable energy goals. Frazer Solar alleged that Lesotho failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, leading to the project's collapse. The dispute was resolved through an ad hoc arbitration seated in Johannesburg, South Africa, conducted under the Rules of the Association of Arbitrators (Southern Africa). A sole arbitrator, Vincent Maleka SC, was appointed to adjudicate the matter. The Kingdom of Lesotho failed to participate in the proceedings at any stage.

Procedural History

Frazer Solar initiated arbitration proceedings by sending a notice to the Kingdom of Lesotho on July 30, 2019. After Lesotho failed to respond or appoint an arbitrator, Frazer Solar requested the Chairperson of the Johannesburg Bar Council to make an appointment. Vincent Maleka SC was appointed as sole arbitrator on August 8, 2019. The Respondent was duly notified of all procedural steps, including the first procedural meeting on September 4, 2019, and the evidentiary hearing on December 2, 2019, but elected not to attend or make any submissions. The proceedings were therefore conducted on an ex parte basis. The final award was rendered on January 28, 2020. Subsequently, on April 29, 2021, Frazer Solar successfully obtained an order from the High Court of South Africa in Johannesburg, which recognized the arbitral award and made it an order of the court, rendering it enforceable in South Africa. Following the issuance of the award, the Government of Lesotho initiated a "self-review" application before its own High Court, seeking to have the underlying Supply Agreement declared unconstitutional and void ab initio. On November 9, 2022, the High Court of Lesotho issued a judgment in favor of the government, setting aside both the Supply Agreement and the arbitration agreement contained within it.

Key Issues and Positions

Claimant's Position

The claimant argued that Lesotho committed a repudiatory breach of the Supply Agreement. The central allegation was that Lesotho's Minister of Finance refused to sign the necessary Finance Agreement with the project's financiers, a condition precedent for the project's implementation. This failure, Frazer Solar contended, violated multiple warranties and material clauses of the contract. Consequently, Frazer Solar terminated the agreement and sought damages. Its main claim was for €50 million in liquidated damages as stipulated in the contract, plus an additional €52.1 million for loss of opportunity under a clause granting it a right of first refusal on other renewable energy projects. In the alternative, it claimed €51.6 million for loss of profits from the project itself, plus the same amount for loss of opportunity.

Respondent's Position

The Kingdom of Lesotho did not participate in the arbitration and therefore did not present a defense or challenge the claimant's positions on jurisdiction, merits, or quantum. In the subsequent domestic court proceedings, Lesotho argued that the Supply Agreement was void from the outset because the minister who signed it lacked the requisite authority, and the agreement was concluded in violation of Lesotho's procurement laws, financial management laws, and the Constitution.

Tribunal/Court Reasoning and Holdings

Jurisdiction

The sole arbitrator affirmed his jurisdiction to hear the dispute despite the Respondent's non-participation. He determined that the parties had validly consented to arbitration in the Supply Agreement. The arbitrator also addressed the applicable procedural law, concluding that while the contract referenced South Africa's domestic Arbitration Act of 1965, the more appropriate governing law was the country's International Arbitration Act of 2017, given the international character of the parties and the dispute.

Merits

Based on the uncontroverted evidence presented by the claimant, including the witness testimony of its managing director, Robert Frazer, the arbitrator found that the Kingdom of Lesotho had committed material breaches of the Supply Agreement. The arbitrator concluded that the refusal by Lesotho's government to execute the Finance Agreement was the primary cause of the project's failure. This act violated crucial warranties that all necessary government approvals were met and that the Finance Agreement would be executed contemporaneously with the Supply Agreement. These breaches were deemed to go to the root of the contract. However, the arbitrator rejected the claimant's argument that Lesotho had also breached the 'first opportunity' clause (Clause 18). He found that the competing project Lesotho pursued instead was a substitute for, not an addition to, the claimant's project, and thus did not trigger the clause.

Quantum/Damages

As a result of the finding on the merits, the arbitrator dismissed the claimant's claim for €52.1 million related to loss of opportunity. For the established breaches of the Supply Agreement, the arbitrator noted the claimant's election to pursue its main claim for €50 million in liquidated damages. He found the liquidated damages clause to be clear, unambiguous, and a reasonable and quantifiable reflection of the claimant's losses, and therefore awarded the full amount.

Costs

Following the principle that costs should follow the event, the arbitrator ruled that the claimant, as the successful party, was entitled to recover its costs. He ordered Lesotho to pay Frazer Solar's legal and expert fees, as well as the full fees of the arbitrator.

Annulment/Set-Aside

In its judgment of November 9, 2022, the High Court of Lesotho declared the Supply Agreement void ab initio. The Court found that the agreement was concluded in flagrant violation of Lesotho's Constitution, its Public Procurement Regulations, and its Public Financial Management and Accountability Act. Specifically, the Court held that the Minister in the Prime Minister's office who signed the agreement lacked the authority to bind the government to such a significant financial commitment, which required the prior consent of the Minister of Finance and the Cabinet. Because the main agreement was found to be unconstitutional and void from its inception for reasons of illegality and lack of authority, the Court concluded that the arbitration clause contained within it was also invalid and could not be severed from the main agreement. The Court therefore set aside both the Supply Agreement and the arbitration agreement. This decision by the Lesotho High Court stands in contrast to the successful enforcement of the award in South Africa, where the High Court made the award an order of court in April 2021. Additionally, on September 23, 2020, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales also granted Frazer Solar permission to enforce the award in that jurisdiction.

Disposition / Relief

The Tribunal ordered the Kingdom of Lesotho to pay Frazer Solar GmbH liquidated damages in the sum of €50 million. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay pre-award interest amounting to €754,273 and post-award interest on the principal sum at a rate of 1.7% per annum from the date of the award until payment. The Kingdom of Lesotho was also held liable for the entirety of the costs of the arbitration. However, in a subsequent judgment on November 9, 2022, the High Court of Lesotho declared both the Supply Agreement and the arbitration clause contained within it to be unconstitutional, unlawful, invalid, and void ab initio, and ordered them to be set aside.