Orange Money Cameroun has suffered a legal setback in its dispute with the Caisse des dépôts et consignations (CDEC) over the BOFAS-Afriland case. On April 7, 2026, the Court of First Instance of Yaoundé Administrative Center rejected the mobile money operator’s request to cancel a payment order of more than CFA3.68 billion issued by the CDEC.
According to court records, the judge first dismissed Orange Money’s jurisdictional objection, then accepted the case for review but ultimately ruled against the company on the merits and ordered it to pay legal costs. The decision was declared immediately enforceable, with Orange Money granted 15 days to appeal.
In its filing, Orange Money had asked the court to nullify the payment order served on February 26, 2026, along with any subsequent enforcement actions.
The company challenged the legal basis of the procedure, arguing that it could not be held jointly liable without a prior court ruling. It maintained that its role as a third-party holder could only produce legal effects after a decision by an administrative judge ruling on its responsibility. This argument was not upheld by the court.
The dispute traces back several months. Orange Money said it received a third-party seizure notice on July 4, 2025, requesting the transfer of funds linked to Afriland First Bank.
The company also pointed to a March 20, 2025 administrative court order that had suspended the mobilization of guarantees issued by Afriland in connection with the project. It argued that it was caught between two enforceable decisions: a court ruling on one side and a recovery notice on the other.
According to its submissions, the process continued with a recovery notice issued on December 19, 2025, followed by a payment demand on January 30, 2026, and the contested order on February 26.
Sources within the CDEC indicate that Orange Money’s resistance to the recovery process could expose it to late payment penalties, based on a decree adopted on December 1, 2023 governing the transfer of funds to the institution. The regulation provides for interest charges calculated at the BEAC marginal lending rate plus two percentage points for delayed payments.
These penalties could reach around CFA150 million, according to the same sources, though this figure has not been independently confirmed.
The CDEC is also considering additional measures to enforce payment, including the possibility of freezing assets held by Orange Money within the banking system.
BGFIBank Cameroun, also involved in the case as a presumed third-party holder, has taken a different approach. Since March 26, 2026, the bank has withdrawn from all ongoing legal proceedings to open negotiations with the CDEC, according to correspondence reviewed by Investir au Cameroun.
Led by Abakal Mahamat, the bank appears to be seeking a settlement to limit its exposure, in contrast to Orange Money’s legal challenge.
The dispute stems from the BOFAS case, involving a public works contract awarded in 2022 for the Bamenda–Babadjou road section, valued at CFA14.32 billion and initially scheduled for completion within 15 months. The contract was later terminated due to delays in execution.
Since then, the case has shifted from infrastructure works to the recovery of financial guarantees, estimated at nearly CFA3.68 billion and issued by Afriland First Bank. It is in this context that the CDEC initiated forced recovery proceedings against third-party holders.
The institution relies on treasury privilege provisions, including Article 43 of the April 14, 2008 law governing deposits and consignments, which allows seizure to proceed regardless of opposition.
The targeted funds correspond to Afriland First Bank assets held by entities such as BGFIBank Cameroun and Orange Money Cameroun. These entities are not the original debtors but are considered holders of funds subject to seizure under the recovery process.
While the case is not yet closed, the first-instance ruling strengthens the CDEC’s position in a dispute that now extends beyond the BOFAS-Afriland file. At stake is the broader balance between public contract enforcement, financial guarantees, and the liability of third-party holders—an issue with implications for the wider banking and financial sector.
Baudouin Enama
