The 977 million FCFA: justice refuses to postpone the sale of a building seized by BOA Bénin.

The Commercial Court of Cotonou refused to postpone the auction of a seized property at the request of Bank of Africa Benin SA. The decision was made on July 2, 2026, by the First Chamber of property seizure procedures of Section IV.

The procedure pits the bank against ALGOAW SA and Zéphirin Kindjanhoundé, presented in the judgment as the company’s mortgage guarantor. Mariette Amoukpo, née Kindjanhoundé, is also a party to the proceedings.

BOA Benin is pursuing the recovery of a debt estimated at 977,277,862 FCFA from ALGOAW SA. In this context, the bank issued payment orders on April 27 and 29, 2021, for real estate seizure to the company and its real guarantor.

A specifications document intended to organize the sale of the property was subsequently filed on June 4, 2021, at the registry of the Commercial Court of Cotonou. The property in question is registered under land title no. 15165 in the land registry of the commune of Abomey-Calavi.

A procedure resumed after a decision from the CCJA

The real estate seizure procedure was initially annulled by a judgment from the Commercial Court of Cotonou issued on February 24, 2022. The court accepted the challenges made against the actions taken by BOA Benin.

The bank appealed to the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration, the supreme court of OHADA. In a ruling made on April 30, 2026, the CCJA overturned the annulment judgment, dismissed the challenges from Zéphirin Kindjanhoundé and Mariette Amoukpo, née Kindjanhoundé, and ordered the continuation of the procedure.

Following this decision, the case was re-entered on the docket of the Commercial Court of Cotonou. The auction of the property was set for July 2, 2026.

Shortly before this deadline, Zéphirin Kindjanhoundé and his wife requested a postponement of the sale. Their request, dated June 25, 2026, was recorded at the court the following day.

To justify their request, they cited the existence of a serious offer for an amicable settlement addressed to the bank. They explained that they had submitted two written proposals to reach a payment agreement without resorting to a forced sale.

The applicants also argued that the market value of the property was significantly higher than the amount claimed by BOA Benin. They stated they were willing to finance a counter-expertise to establish the real value of the property.

Moreover, they indicated that the property was the family’s main residence and that one of their deceased children was laid to rest there. According to them, a postponement should avoid a significant economic loss while ensuring the bank was paid under secure conditions.

BOA Benin opposed this request. The bank argued that a proposal for an amicable settlement did not constitute a serious and legitimate cause sufficient to justify the postponement of an auction. It also clarified that it was not favorable to the proposed amicable solution.

The court reminded that Article 281 of the OHADA Uniform Act relating to simplified recovery procedures and enforcement means allows postponing an auction only for serious and legitimate causes.

After reviewing the arguments presented, the judges found that the proposed amicable settlement, the alleged exceptional value of the property, the particular nature of the asset, and the common interest claimed by the applicants did not meet these conditions.

The court therefore rejected the request for a postponement of the auction. It ruled in first and last instance, as the decision regarding the postponement of a sale due to property seizure is, in principle, not subject to any appeal under the conditions set forth by the OHADA Uniform Act.

In its ruling, the court found that the reasons presented by Zéphirin Kindjanhoundé and Mariette Amoukpo, née Kindjanhoundé, did not qualify as serious and legitimate causes. Consequently, it rejected their request for a postponement and reserved the costs.