OHADA CCJA: No Douala Port Jurisdiction Over CFA9.17 Billion Dividend Dispute

• The OHADA Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA) ruled it lacks jurisdiction over a CFA9.17 billion dividend dispute involving the Port Authority of Douala (PAD).
• The CCJA determined the case falls under Cameroonian labor law, not the OHADA commercial arbitration framework.
• The dispute concerns dividends from a 24,000-share, 6% stake in Douala International Terminal (DIT) that PAD held for its employees.
• PAD collected approximately CFA9.17 billion in dividends from these DIT shares between 2005 and 2018 but did not distribute them to the intended employees.
• PAD disputes its employees' right to these funds, which were the subject of an arbitration award in favor of the Autonomous Union of Cameroon Port Workers (SATPC).

By reclassifying the Port Authority Douala dividend dispute as a matter governed by Cameroonian labor law, the CCJA has emphasized that even cases involving significant corporate assets, such as shareholdings and dividend distributions, can be re-characterized based on the fundamental nature of the relationship between the parties involved.

The OHADA Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA) has definitively ruled that it lacks the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal brought forth by the Port Authority of Douala (PAD). This significant decision, documented as Ruling No. 125/2026 and issued on June 4, 2026, centers on a substantial financial disagreement amounting to CFA9.17 billion. The appeal specifically targeted an arbitration award that had previously instructed PAD to disburse this considerable sum to the Autonomous Union of Cameroon Port Workers (SATPC).

At the heart of the contention lies the distribution of dividends originating from a 6% equity stake in Douala International Terminal (DIT), the entity that formerly managed container operations at the bustling Douala Port. The CCJA's rationale for declining jurisdiction was its determination that the underlying issues of the case fall squarely within the domain of Cameroonian labor law, thereby placing it outside the typical scope of OHADA CCJA Douala Port jurisdiction.

The intricate origins of this substantial dividend dispute can be traced back to a specific block of 24,000 shares in Douala International Terminal, collectively representing 6% of the company's total capital. These shares were acquired by the Port Authority of Douala for a sum of CFA240 million, explicitly designated for the benefit of its employees. As stipulated within DIT's corporate bylaws, these shares were reserved exclusively for port workers, with the understanding that PAD would serve as a temporary custodian, holding them until the intended beneficiaries were able to finalize their purchase.

Over a considerable period spanning thirteen years, from 2005 to 2018, the Port Authority of Douala accumulated approximately CFA9.17 billion in dividends generated by these shares. Crucially, despite receiving these substantial earnings, PAD did not proceed to distribute these funds to the employees for whom the shares were originally intended. The Port Authority of Douala maintains its position, disputing the entitlement of its employees to these accumulated funds, a stance that ultimately led to the initial SATPC arbitration award and the subsequent appeal.

The OHADA Common Court of Justice and Arbitration's recent ruling offers critical clarity regarding the demarcation of jurisdictional boundaries, particularly in scenarios where commercial disputes appear to overlap with national labor regulations. By reclassifying the Port Authority Douala dividend dispute as a matter governed by Cameroonian labor law, the CCJA has emphasized that even cases involving significant corporate assets, such as shareholdings and dividend distributions, can be re-characterized based on the fundamental nature of the relationship between the parties involved. This decision underscores that the OHADA CCJA Douala Port jurisdiction, while designed to provide a unified legal framework for business activities across its member states, will defer to specific national legal frameworks when the core issue unequivocally pertains to employment rights and worker entitlements.

For legal professionals advising clients operating within OHADA member states, this case establishes a significant precedent. It highlights the imperative to meticulously assess the true underlying nature of any dispute to accurately determine the appropriate judicial or arbitral forum, even if the initial appearance suggests a purely commercial disagreement. The outcome strongly implies that disputes concerning employee benefits, irrespective of their complex financial structuring, may ultimately find their resolution under national Cameroonian labor law jurisdiction rather than through regional commercial arbitration mechanisms.

This ruling clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the OHADA CCJA and national courts, particularly when commercial disputes involve underlying labor law issues. Lawyers advising clients in OHADA member states should note that even disputes concerning shareholdings and dividends may be reclassified as national labor law matters, impacting forum selection and litigation strategy.

Source: Reporting based on legal source material.