High Court grants Soprim Construction a charging order over Djibouti-linked London funds

The Commercial Court has granted a final charging order allowing Soprim Construction SARL to recover the entirety of approximately US$41.6 million held in London bank accounts, ruling that the funds, though nominally belonging to a Djiboutian port operator, are in truth held on trust for the Republic of Djibouti.

In Soprim Construction SARL v The Republic of Djibouti [2026] EWHC 1850 (Comm), Mr Justice Picken resolved a long-running dispute rooted in the development of the Doraleh Container Terminal, a strategically significant port facility whose profits have been at the centre of years of litigation and arbitration across multiple jurisdictions.

Soprim holds unsatisfied arbitral awards exceeding US$100 million against Djibouti, arising from what an earlier tribunal, chaired by Sir Gordon Langley, described as a campaign of "persecution" against Soprim's general manager, Mr Abdourahman Boreh, after he fell out of favour with the country's president. The judgement recounts findings from earlier English proceedings, including observations by Flaux J that Djibouti had misled the court over a terrorism conviction against Mr Boreh that was later quashed.

Separately, DP World Djibouti and Doraleh Container Terminal SA (DCT), the Objecting Parties in this case, hold arbitral awards against Djibouti totalling around US$650 million, also unpaid, following Djibouti's attempt to seize control of the terminal in 2018 through presidential decrees and the appointment of an administrator, Ms Chantal Tadoral, whom the court found had close links to the government.

Soprim's case was that funds held at Standard Chartered Bank in DCT's name were beneficially owned by Djibouti, such that they could be enforced against despite Soprim having no judgement against DCT directly. Mr Justice Picken accepted that there was an implied agreement, entered into by Ms Tadoral on Djibouti's behalf, under which DCT held the accounts on trust for the state. He found this inference "inescapable" given the extent of presidential control over Djibouti's institutions and Ms Tadoral's consistent pattern of acting against DCT's own interests and in line with government instructions, despite neither Djibouti nor its administrators offering evidence to contest the claim.

The judgement also addressed the applicable law under the Hague Trusts Convention, concluding that English law governed the arrangement because the funds themselves were situated in London, and rejected the Objecting Parties' argument that Ms Tadoral's appointment could not be recognised in England on grounds of breach of injunction, breach of an arbitration agreement, or a lack of natural justice in the Djiboutian courts. The court considered but declined to follow a contrary approach taken by the Hong Kong courts on related questions concerning Ms Tadoral's authority.

Soprim's alternative arguments, that DCT had no separate legal existence from the state, or that a third party debt order or receivership should be granted instead, were all rejected, largely because DCT retained genuine corporate substance, including an independent board that had pursued extensive litigation against Djibouti in its own right.

On discretion, the judge held that Soprim, as the only creditor to have actually applied for a charging order, was entitled to priority under the established "first past the post" principle, notwithstanding submissions that this would allow Djibouti to achieve indirectly what English public policy would prevent it doing directly. A separate application by the Objecting Parties to set aside the underlying enforcement proceedings for late service also failed.