A unit of the Central Bank of Libya has taken Zimbabwe to court in the United Kingdom over an unpaid fuel credit facility dating back more than two decades, with the claimed debt now exceeding US$100 million.

The Libyan Foreign Bank (LFB) has filed suit in the UK High Court (Commercial Division) against the Government of Zimbabwe, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, and the state-owned National Oil Infrastructure Company of Zimbabwe (NOICZIM).

The dispute stems from a fuel import credit facility agreed in 2001, under which LFB provided financing to NOICZIM to enable Zimbabwe to import fuel during a period of severe foreign currency shortages. The facility, valued at approximately US$90 million, was largely used to pay international fuel suppliers, including Dutch trading firm Oilinvest BV.

According to court documents, Zimbabwe has repaid only about US$5.5 million over the past two decades, with limited instalments made between 2013 and 2023. LFB argues that accumulated interest and penalties have pushed the outstanding amount to well over US$100 million.

The Libyan bank maintains that the debt was sovereign-backed, citing assurances provided at the time by Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Finance, then led by Simbarashe Makoni, which reportedly guaranteed the facility on behalf of the state. LFB also points to correspondence over the years in which Zimbabwean officials allegedly acknowledged the debt.

The case was lodged in November 2025, and the UK High Court has ordered Zimbabwe to file its formal defence by the end of January 2026. Zimbabwe had initially indicated it would challenge the court’s jurisdiction but has since accepted that the matter can proceed in London.

The lawsuit adds to Zimbabwe’s broader external debt challenges. The country is estimated to owe more than US$21 billion to multilateral lenders, bilateral creditors and commercial financiers, arrears that have kept it largely excluded from international capital markets for over two decades.

If LFB succeeds, Zimbabwe could face enforcement actions against state-linked assets outside the country, depending on the court’s ruling and subsequent legal steps.

The case highlights the long-term risks associated with sovereign guarantees for state-owned enterprises and reflects a growing trend of historical African debt disputes being pursued through foreign courts.