Mozambique v Privinvest: Court of Appeal rejects challenge to joining Safa’s widow over alleged liabilities

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Clara Martinez Thedy de Safa against an order permitting Mozambique to join her to long-running proceedings concerning alleged corruption and substantial losses arising from contracts with the Privinvest Group.

In The Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 1349, the court held that the English proceedings could determine whether Safa had succeeded to liabilities allegedly incurred by her late husband, Iskandar Safa, under Lebanese law.

The appeal concerned an order made by Mr Justice Robin Knowles in June 2025, which allowed Mozambique to amend its particulars of claim, join Safa and her two sons as defendants, and serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction. The sons subsequently disclaimed their inheritance under an order made by a Lebanese court in June 2026. Their appeals were allowed by consent, leaving Safa as the sole appellant.

Mozambique’s underlying claims allege that Safa and companies within the Privinvest Group bribed officials to secure contracts for fishing vessels and associated facilities that were unsuitable for the country’s needs and caused substantial losses. Following a trial in 2023, Safa died in January 2024 before the High Court handed down its main judgement.

The central issue was whether Safa could be joined as an heir under Lebanese law, rather than as a representative of her husband’s estate. The evidence established that, under Lebanese law, assets and liabilities pass automatically to heirs on death, subject to limits based on the value and share of the inheritance. An heir may also disclaim the inheritance.

Safa argued that the claim was barred by the principle that English courts will not exercise jurisdiction over a person acting as administrator of a foreign estate. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, distinguishing between claims against a foreign personal representative and claims against an heir in their own capacity.

Lord Justice Miles, giving the lead judgement, said the claim was brought against Safa personally as a successor to her husband’s alleged liabilities. As Lebanese law did not provide for a conventional estate administration process, there was no foreign representative or administrative role over which the English court would be exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

The court also rejected the challenge to permission to serve proceedings outside England and Wales. It found a sufficient connection between the existing claim against Safa’s late husband and the proposed claim against his widow, because establishing his underlying liability was essential to determining whether she had succeeded to it.

The court emphasised that Mozambique was seeking a declaration that Safa was liable in principle as her husband’s successor. It was not asking the English court to determine the value of her inheritance, resolve the priority of competing creditors or order payment from specific assets.

Those limits were also relevant to the question of forum. Although Lebanese law governed the succession issues, the court considered that the outstanding questions were sufficiently narrow for the English Commercial Court to determine. The existing proceedings had already examined the allegations against Safa, and expert evidence on Lebanese law had been provided.

The court acknowledged that issues remained concerning whether an uncrystallised tort liability, or a liability arising from criminal conduct, could pass to an heir. However, it concluded that these questions did not make Lebanon the clearly more appropriate forum in the circumstances.

Lady Justice Whipple and Lord Justice Males agreed with the decision. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court able to continue determining whether Safa had succeeded to her husband’s alleged liabilities to Mozambique.