Commercial Court grants final anti-suit injunction in Trafigura v SONARA dispute

The Commercial Court has granted a final mandatory anti-suit injunction against a Cameroonian state-owned refiner, finding that proceedings it brought before a court in Limbe were designed to bypass an exclusive jurisdiction clause and subvert the autonomy of a letter of credit governed by English law.

In Trafigura PTE Limited v Société Nationale de Raffinage [2026] EWHC 1914 (Comm), Mr Justice Michael Green held that the Limbe Proceedings, brought by Société Nationale de Raffinage (SONARA) to suspend payment under a letter of credit, fell outside the narrow exception in the parties' sale contract and amounted to a breach of clause 23G, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court in London.

The dispute arose from a cargo of gasoline sold by Trafigura to SONARA under a contract governed by English law. Following disputed sampling results, SONARA rejected the cargo on quality grounds and sought to suspend payment under an irrevocable letter of credit it had procured in Trafigura's favour, itself also governed by English law and subject to the same exclusive jurisdiction regime. When the issuing bank declined to suspend payment absent evidence of a legal challenge, SONARA applied to the Limbe Court for an order requiring the bank to withhold payment pending further testing.

Trafigura obtained an interim anti-suit injunction from Mr Justice Robin Knowles in April 2026 after its jurisdictional objection in Cameroon was rejected. Despite subsequently receiving payment under the letter of credit, which rendered the Limbe Proceedings largely redundant, SONARA maintained them for several months, prompting Trafigura to press for final relief.

SONARA argued that its application in Cameroon fell within an exception in clause 23G permitting either party to pursue conservatory, interlocutory or interim measures in other jurisdictions. The judge rejected this, applying the ejusdem generis principle to hold that the exception was confined to protective measures such as arrest or attachment in aid of proceedings in London, not to an attempt to unwind the agreed payment mechanism. He accepted Trafigura's submission that the exception could not be read so widely as to undermine the fundamental "pay now, argue later" principle underpinning documentary credits in international trade, referencing the established treatment of security measures brought in non-contractual forums as discussed in Aquavita International SA v Indagro [2023] 1 Lloyd's Rep 61.

Examining the substance of the Limbe application, the judge noted several features suggesting it went beyond a genuine protective measure, including its reliance on allegations that the cargo was defective, its failure to reference clause 23G or the contract's English governing law, and a broadly worded prayer for any further relief the Cameroonian court saw fit to grant. He also expressed concern about the reliability of evidence SONARA had filed concerning a hearing in June 2026, preferring a contemporaneous report from Trafigura's Cameroonian lawyer over an unattributed account relayed second-hand by SONARA's solicitor.

Having found the Limbe Proceedings in breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause, the judge held it unnecessary to determine Trafigura's alternative quasi-contractual and vexatious conduct arguments in full, though he indicated he would have reached the same conclusion on the quasi-contractual basis had the primary finding gone the other way.

The court ordered final anti-suit relief requiring the Limbe Proceedings to be withdrawn, while narrowing the original interim order to properly reflect the scope of the clause 23G exception. Costs submissions were invited from the parties, with the claimant seeking recovery on an indemnity basis.