Civil asset recovery in Cameroon is governed by a composite framework combining OHADA supranational law, domestic legislation, and CEMAC regulations, complemented by international conventions duly ratified and incorporated into domestic law pursuant to Article 45 of the Constitution of Cameroon.

At the supranational level, the primary instruments are the OHADA Uniform Acts, notably the Uniform Act Organising Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution (AUPSRVE, revised in 2024), which governs enforcement and conservatory measures, and the Uniform Act on Commercial Companies and Economic Interest Groups (AUDCG, revised 30 January 2014), which provides mechanisms relevant to corporate liability and directors’ misconduct. The Uniform Act on Collective Proceedings for the Wiping Off of Debts (AUPCAP, revised 10 September 2015) is also central in insolvency-related recovery.

Domestically, key provisions are found in the Civil Code (applicable in its French-derived form), particularly Articles 1382 and 1383 (now 1240 and 1241 in French codification), governing tortious liability, and Articles 1134 et seq. (binding force of contracts). The Cameroon Penal Code (Law No. 2016/007 of 12 July 2016) is relevant where civil claims arise from criminal conduct, notably fraud (Section 318), breach of trust (Section 322), and misappropriation.

Procedural aspects are governed by the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, while evidential and investigative dimensions may intersect with the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 2005/007 of 27 July 2005).

At the regional level, CEMAC Regulation No. 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 11 April 2016 on the prevention and repression of money laundering and terrorist financing is particularly relevant, especially in tracing illicit funds.
Cameroon is also a party to international conventions such as the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which informs judicial cooperation and asset recovery principles in practice.

In the Cameroonian legal practice, this framework operates in a hybrid civil law environment where asset recovery is predominantly pursued through civil claims, often in parallel with criminal proceedings.

Under Cameroonian law, civil asset recovery extends to all assets forming part of a person’s patrimony, in accordance with the fundamental civil law principle that a debtor’s assets constitute the common pledge of creditors (gage commun des créanciers). This broad approach is reinforced by the enforcement framework of the OHADA Uniform Act Organising Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution (AUPSRVE), which applies to all categories of attachable property.

In practice, the following categories of assets may be subject to civil recovery proceedings:

• First, immovable property, including land and buildings, which may be subject to attachment and judicial sale in accordance with domestic land law (notably the Land Tenure Ordinances of 1974) and OHADA enforcement procedures. Jurisdiction is generally tied to the location of the property.
• Secondly, bank accounts and financial assets, which are among the most frequently targeted assets in recovery proceedings. These may be attached through saisie-attribution or frozen via saisie conservatoire under Articles 54 et seq. of the AUPSRVE. In practice, bank attachments are a central tool for both asset preservation and identification.
• Thirdly, movable property (biens meubles corporels), including equipment, vehicles, inventory and other tangible assets, which may be seized and sold through saisie-vente procedures.
• Fourthly, intangible movable assets (biens meubles incorporels), including: receivables and contractual rights; shares and other securities in companies governed by the OHADA Uniform Act on Commercial Companies and Economic Interest Groups (AUDCG); and intellectual property rights, to the extent that they have an economic value and are transferable
• Fifthly, business interests and commercial assets, including goodwill, ongoing business operations, and income streams, which may be subject to attachment or judicial management in appropriate cases.
• Sixthly, insurance proceeds and indemnities, which may be attached as receivables where a debtor is entitled to payment under an insurance contract.
• Seventhly, digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets. Although not expressly regulated under Cameroonian or OHADA law, such assets are increasingly treated in practice as intangible movable property, capable in principle of being subject to recovery measures, albeit with significant evidential and enforcement challenges.
• Finally, assets held through intermediaries, including nominees, corporate vehicles, or third-party custodians, may also be targeted, provided that the claimant can establish a sufficient legal connection between the debtor and the asset.

Certain categories of assets may be subject to statutory protections or limitations, such as:

• assets deemed necessary for basic living (in the case of individuals);
• or assets subject to specific legal regimes (for example, certain public assets or diplomatic property).

In practical terms, the scope of recoverable assets in Cameroon is extensive and flexible, enabling claimants to pursue recovery across a wide spectrum of asset classes. The principal limitations are therefore not legal in nature, but rather evidential and practical, particularly in identifying, tracing, and effectively enforcing against such assets.

In Cameroon, civil asset recovery is grounded in a combination of Civil Code principles, OHADA law, and procedural mechanisms under the OHADA Uniform Act Organising Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution (AUPSRVE). The system provides a range of causes of action and enforcement tools enabling claimants to recover misappropriated assets or obtain compensation.

The principal civil causes of action include:

• First, tort liability (responsabilité délictuelle) under the Civil Code (Articles 1382 and 1383, now reflected as Articles 1240 and 1241 in modern French codification). This is the most frequently invoked basis in asset recovery matters involving fraud, misappropriation, or breach of trust. The claimant must establish fault, damage, and a causal link.
• Secondly, contractual liability (responsabilité contractuelle) arises where the misappropriation or dissipation of assets results from a breach of contractual obligations (Article 1134 et seq. of the Civil Code, reflecting the binding force of agreements). This is particularly relevant in commercial and fiduciary relationships.
• Thirdly, unjust enrichment (enrichissement sans cause) provides a restitutionary basis for recovery where one party has been enriched at the expense of another without lawful justification. This is especially useful in cases involving indirect transfers or complex transactional structures.
• Fourthly, claimants may bring actions in nullity (nullité) to set aside transactions tainted by fraud (dol), error, or illegality. Once annulled, the transaction is deemed void ab initio, and the parties are restored to their prior positions through restitution.
• Fifthly, the action paulienne (fraudulent conveyance action) allows creditors to challenge acts carried out by a debtor in fraud of their rights. Under this mechanism, transactions intended to organise insolvency or shield assets may be declared inopposable to the creditor, enabling recovery against the transferred assets.

In addition to substantive causes of action, the legal framework provides robust procedural and enforcement mechanisms, including:

• saisies conservatoires to preserve assets pending judgment (AUPSRVE, Articles 54 et seq.);
• and measures of execution (such as saisie-attribution and saisie-vente) to enforce judgments once obtained.

These civil mechanisms must be distinguished from criminal confiscation or forfeiture regimes, which are governed by the Cameroon Penal Code (Law No. 2016/007 of 12 July 2016) and, in financial crime matters, by CEMAC Regulation No. 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 11 April 2016.

Criminal confiscation is a penal sanction, imposed by a criminal court following conviction, and is primarily aimed at punishment, deterrence, and the removal of illicit gains from the offender. It may result in the transfer of assets to the State.

By contrast, civil asset recovery is compensatory and restitutive in nature, pursued by private parties (or, in some cases, public entities) with the objective of restoring assets or obtaining damages. It operates on a lower standard of proof (balance of probabilities) and is controlled by the claimant.

In practice, the two regimes are often complementary. Civil proceedings may be initiated independently or in parallel with criminal proceedings, allowing claimants to benefit from the investigative powers of criminal authorities while retaining control over the recovery process.

Accordingly, the Cameroonian framework offers a flexible and multi-layered set of tools, enabling practitioners to tailor recovery strategies to the specific factual and procedural context of each case.

In Cameroon, standing to initiate civil asset recovery proceedings is governed by the general principle of “intérêt à agir” under the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, pursuant to which any person with a direct, personal and legitimate interest may bring a claim before the courts.

Accordingly, standing is broadly construed and includes a wide range of potential claimants.

Private individuals may initiate proceedings where they have suffered loss arising from fraud, misappropriation, breach of trust, or contractual default. This remains the most common category of claimant in practice.

Corporate entities have full standing to pursue recovery of assets belonging to them, including through actions against directors, officers, or third parties. Under the OHADA Uniform Act on Commercial Companies and Economic Interest Groups (AUDCG), companies may also bring actions for mismanagement or abuse of corporate assets.

Insolvency practitioners (syndics) appointed under the OHADA Uniform Act on Collective Proceedings for the Wiping Off of Debts (AUPCAP) play a central role in asset recovery within insolvency. They are vested with authority to:

• recover assets belonging to the debtor’s estate;
• initiate avoidance or clawback actions;
• and represent the collective interests of creditors.

While the common law concepts of trustees or receivers are not formally recognised in Cameroonian law, analogous functions are performed by court-appointed administrators, liquidators, or judicial representatives, who may act in a representative capacity to recover assets.

Creditors may also initiate certain forms of recovery action, particularly through the action paulienne, allowing them to challenge transactions entered into in fraud of their rights.

State entities and public bodies have standing to bring civil recovery actions, especially in cases involving public funds, corruption, or damage to state property. In addition, victims of criminal conduct may bring civil claims within criminal proceedings through the mechanism of constitution de partie civile, thereby seeking restitution or damages.

Foreign individuals, corporations, and governmental entities likewise have standing, subject to compliance with jurisdictional requirements.
From a practical perspective, the threshold for standing in Cameroon is relatively permissive, and courts focus primarily on the existence of a genuine legal interest. This facilitates access to civil recovery mechanisms for a wide spectrum of claimants, both domestic and foreign, and supports the use of civil proceedings as a central tool in asset tracing and recovery strategies.

Foreign states and governmental entities are, in principle, entitled to bring civil asset recovery proceedings before Cameroonian courts, provided that the ordinary requirements of jurisdiction, standing (intérêt à agir), and procedural admissibility are satisfied under the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.

Cameroon adheres in practice to a restrictive doctrine of sovereign immunity, consistent with contemporary international law. Accordingly, while foreign states benefit from immunity in respect of sovereign or public acts (acta jure imperii), such immunity does not extend to commercial or private law activities (acta jure gestionis). In the context of asset recovery, where a foreign state acts as a claimant seeking restitution of assets or damages arising from fraud, corruption, or misappropriation, it is generally treated as a private litigant, and no immunity bars access to the courts.

Conversely, where a foreign state is a defendant, issues of sovereign immunity may arise, particularly if the assets in question are connected to sovereign functions. However, assets used for commercial purposes may, in appropriate circumstances, be subject to enforcement measures, subject to judicial scrutiny.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens is not formally recognised in Cameroonian civil procedure. Courts do not typically decline jurisdiction on the basis that another forum would be more appropriate. Instead, jurisdictional challenges are addressed through exceptions to jurisdiction (exceptions d’incompétence), assessed on the basis of statutory connecting factors such as domicile, location of assets, or place of performance.

That said, in cross-border asset recovery matters, Cameroonian courts will consider:

• the existence of a sufficient connection between the dispute and Cameroon;
• the location of assets within the jurisdiction;
• and whether parallel proceedings are pending abroad.

While there is no strict doctrine of lis pendens in the common law sense, the existence of parallel foreign proceedings may influence the court’s case management approach, particularly to avoid conflicting decisions.

Foreign states may also benefit from international cooperation mechanisms, including those under the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which facilitates cross-border asset recovery and enhances judicial cooperation, although its primary focus remains criminal in nature.

From a procedural perspective, foreign state claimants are generally subject to the same rules as domestic parties. However, in certain cases, Cameroonian courts may consider requiring security for costs, particularly where the claimant has no presence or assets within the jurisdiction, although such measures remain discretionary and relatively uncommon.

In practical terms, Cameroonian courts are receptive to claims brought by foreign states, particularly in matters involving fraud, corruption, or misappropriation of public funds. The principal limitations are therefore not doctrinal barriers, but rather jurisdictional, evidential, and enforcement-related considerations, especially in complex cross-border contexts.

In Cameroon, the treatment of corporate vehicles and intermediaries in civil asset recovery proceedings is governed primarily by the OHADA Uniform Act on Commercial Companies and Economic Interest Groups (AUDCG, revised 30 January 2014), supplemented by general civil law principles. While the legal system recognises the separate legal personality of companies, courts are prepared, in appropriate circumstances, to look beyond formal structures where they are used to facilitate fraud or conceal assets.

Corporate entities are, in principle, autonomous legal persons with distinct patrimonies. However, where companies are used as instruments of wrongdoing, Cameroonian courts may apply doctrines analogous to piercing the corporate veil, although not expressly codified. In practice, this may arise in situations involving:

• fraud (fraude) or abuse of rights;
• fictitious or sham companies (sociétés fictives);
• or confusion of assets (confusion des patrimoines) between a company and its shareholders or affiliated entities.

Under the AUDCG, directors and managers may incur personal liability in cases of mismanagement or fraudulent conduct, particularly where their actions have caused harm to creditors or third parties. This provides an additional avenue for recovery where corporate structures have been used improperly.

With respect to layered corporate structures, including subsidiaries, affiliates, and offshore entities, Cameroonian courts adopt a substance-over-form approach, examining the economic reality of the arrangement. Where it can be demonstrated that an entity is merely an intermediary or alter ego of the wrongdoer, courts may disregard the interposition of that entity for the purposes of recovery.

The concept of a trust, as understood in common law jurisdictions, is not recognised under OHADA law. Similarly, foundations in the civil law sense are not a common feature of the Cameroonian legal system. However, arrangements involving nominees or informal fiduciary relationships may be scrutinised by the courts. Where such arrangements are used to conceal beneficial ownership, courts may recharacterise the relationship and attribute ownership to the true economic beneficiary.

In practice, claimants may challenge intermediary structures through a combination of:

• actions in nullity (nullité) where transactions are tainted by fraud;
• action paulienne, to render transfers inopposable where they were made in fraud of creditors;
• and revendication or restitution claims, where assets can be traced through the structure.

In insolvency contexts, the concept of confusion des patrimoines may be particularly relevant, allowing the pooling of assets of related entities where their financial affairs are inextricably intertwined.

From an evidential perspective, the principal challenge lies in establishing control, beneficial ownership, and the flow of assets through the structure. Given the absence of extensive disclosure mechanisms, practitioners must rely on a combination of documentary evidence, expert analysis, and indirect inference.

In practical terms, while Cameroon does not provide a codified doctrine of veil-piercing in the common law sense, its legal system offers robust functional equivalents, enabling courts to disregard artificial structures and ensure that civil asset recovery is not defeated by the interposition of corporate or nominee arrangements.

Jurisdiction in civil asset recovery proceedings in Cameroon is determined by a combination of domestic procedural rules under the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and, where applicable, OHADA law, particularly in commercial matters.

As a general principle, the competent court is that of the defendant’s domicile or residence (forum rei). Where the defendant is a legal person, jurisdiction lies with the court of its registered office or principal place of business, as recognised under the OHADA Uniform Act on Commercial Companies and Economic Interest Groups (AUDCG).

In addition, jurisdiction may be established based on the location of the asset (forum rei sitae), particularly in asset recovery matters involving:

immovable property, where jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the courts of the place where the property is situated;
or movable assets located within Cameroon, especially where conservatory or enforcement measures are sought under the OHADA AUPSRVE.

Contractual disputes may also be brought before the court of the place of performance of the obligation, while tort claims (including fraud or misappropriation) may be brought before the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or where the damage was suffered, in line with general civil law principles.

Where multiple defendants are involved, Cameroonian courts may accept jurisdiction over all parties where there is a sufficient connection between the claims, in order to avoid fragmentation of proceedings.

With respect to international jurisdiction, Cameroonian courts will generally assume jurisdiction where there is a sufficient connecting factor to Cameroon, such as:

• the presence of the defendant;
• the location of assets within the territory;
• or the occurrence of the wrongful act or its effects within Cameroon.

Conflicts of jurisdiction are resolved through established procedural principles rather than a formal doctrine of forum non conveniens. A defendant may raise a jurisdictional objection (exception d’incompétence) at an early stage of the proceedings. The court will then determine its competence based on statutory rules and connecting factors.

In cross-border disputes, Cameroonian courts do not typically decline jurisdiction solely on the basis that another forum may be more appropriate. However, they will consider:

• whether the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of another court (e.g. immovable property abroad);
• and whether parallel proceedings are pending in another jurisdiction.

Within the OHADA framework, issues of interpretation of Uniform Acts may ultimately be referred to the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA), which ensures uniformity of legal interpretation across Member States. However, the CCJA does not function as a court of first instance and does not directly resolve jurisdictional conflicts between national courts.

In practice, jurisdiction in asset recovery matters is often anchored strategically on the location of assets, allowing claimants to:

• initiate proceedings in Cameroon where assets are present;
• obtain conservatory measures rapidly;
• and secure enforcement within the jurisdiction.

Accordingly, while the jurisdictional framework is grounded in classical civil law principles, it offers sufficient flexibility to support effective asset recovery strategies, particularly where assets or relevant parties are located within Cameroon.

Yes. Cameroon recognises and enforces foreign civil judgments, including those relating to asset recovery, through the exequatur procedure before the competent domestic courts, in accordance with the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and general principles of private international law.

To obtain enforcement, the applicant must apply to the competent court (typically the High Court of the place where enforcement is sought) and satisfy a number of well-established conditions.

First, the foreign judgment must have been rendered by a court having proper international jurisdiction according to Cameroonian conflict of laws principles. In practice, this requires a sufficient connection between the dispute and the foreign forum.

Secondly, the judgment must be final and enforceable in the country of origin (i.e. no longer subject to ordinary appeal or provisionally enforceable where applicable).

Thirdly, the judgment must have been obtained in compliance with due process, including proper service of proceedings and respect for the rights of defence (principe du contradictoire).

Fourthly, the decision must not be contrary to international public policy (ordre public international) of Cameroon. This is a key control mechanism and may arise, for example, where the foreign judgment violates fundamental procedural fairness or substantive legal principles.

Fifthly, the judgment must not be tainted by fraud.

Finally, while not always expressly stated as a strict requirement, reciprocity may be considered in practice, particularly in older jurisprudence, although modern practice tends to focus more on fairness and procedural integrity.

Once exequatur is granted, the foreign judgment is assimilated to a domestic judgment and may be enforced using the mechanisms provided under the OHADA Uniform Act Organising Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution (AUPSRVE), including attachments and enforcement measures against assets located in Cameroon.

With respect to foreign interim measures, such as freezing or preservation orders, recognition is more nuanced. In principle, such measures may also be subject to exequatur; however, in practice, claimants often prefer to seek fresh conservatory measures directly in Cameroon (e.g. saisies conservatoires) based on the underlying claim, as this is typically faster and more effective.

Grounds for refusal of exequatur include:

• lack of jurisdiction of the foreign court;
• absence of finality or enforceability of the judgment;
• breach of due process or denial of the right to be heard;
• conflict with Cameroonian international public policy;
• fraud in obtaining the judgment;
• or incompatibility with an existing domestic decision or prior recognised foreign judgment.

In practice, Cameroonian courts adopt a relatively pragmatic approach, particularly in commercial matters, and are generally receptive to the enforcement of foreign judgments where the above conditions are met.

From a strategic perspective, while exequatur remains an essential tool in cross-border asset recovery, practitioners frequently combine it with parallel local proceedings and conservatory measures to maximise efficiency and secure assets at an early stage.

International cooperation in civil asset recovery involving Cameroon is achieved through a combination of treaty-based mechanisms, regional frameworks, and practical cross-border coordination, although the system remains largely procedural and formalistic compared to common law jurisdictions.

At the international level, Cameroon relies on judicial cooperation mechanisms, including:

bilateral and multilateral treaties on judicial assistance, where applicable;
and the framework provided by the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which, although primarily criminal in nature, significantly facilitates asset tracing, information exchange, and recovery of proceeds of corruption across jurisdictions.

A central procedural tool is the use of letters rogatory (commissions rogatoires internationales). Through this mechanism, a Cameroonian court may formally request a foreign court to:

• obtain evidence (including documents, bank records, or witness testimony);
• carry out investigative acts;
• or execute specific procedural measures within the requested jurisdiction.

Conversely, Cameroonian courts may execute foreign letters rogatory in accordance with domestic procedural law, subject to compliance with public policy and sovereignty considerations.

In addition, parties may seek assistance through exequatur proceedings, whereby foreign judgments or orders (including those relating to asset recovery or freezing measures) are recognised and enforced in Cameroon, provided they meet the established conditions (jurisdiction, finality, due process, and compatibility with international public policy).

At the regional level, although OHADA does not establish a full system of mutual legal assistance, it provides uniform procedural and enforcement rules, which facilitate cross-border recognition and execution of decisions within OHADA Member States, particularly through the interpretative role of the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA).

From a practical standpoint, effective cross-border asset recovery often depends on:

• parallel proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, coordinated with local counsel, particularly where assets or intermediaries (such as banks or exchanges) are located abroad;
• informal cooperation with foreign lawyers, forensic experts, and investigators, which is frequently more efficient than formal diplomatic channels;
• and, where relevant, engagement with financial intelligence units (FIUs) under AML frameworks, especially in matters involving suspected illicit financial flows.

However, several limitations arise in practice:

• procedural delays associated with letters rogatory and diplomatic transmission;
• variability in responsiveness between jurisdictions
•  and the absence of harmonised civil disclosure mechanisms across borders.

In digital asset or complex fraud cases, these challenges are particularly pronounced, as key intermediaries are often located in jurisdictions requiring local court orders before disclosure or enforcement can be achieved.

In practical terms, successful international asset recovery involving Cameroon requires a multi-layered approach, combining formal judicial cooperation tools with proactive cross-border legal strategy, early engagement of foreign counsel, and careful coordination of proceedings in multiple jurisdictions.

Accordingly, while the legal mechanisms for international cooperation are well established in principle, their effectiveness depends largely on speed, coordination, and the ability to navigate multiple legal systems simultaneously.

In Cameroon, interim relief aimed at preserving assets is primarily governed by the OHADA Uniform Act Organising Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution (AUPSRVE, Articles 54 to 74), which provides a comprehensive and harmonised framework across OHADA Member States.

The principal measure is the saisie conservatoire, which allows a creditor to secure movable assets (including bank accounts, receivables, and tangible property) pending a final determination on the merits. This mechanism performs a function broadly analogous to a freezing injunction or Mareva relief in common law jurisdictions, although it is procedurally distinct and rooted in civil law tradition.

In addition, creditors may resort to:

• Saisie conservatoire of debts (créances), including bank account attachments, which is frequently used in practice against financial institutions;
• Judicial attachments (saisies judiciaires) over tangible movable property;
• Provisional measures ordered by the competent court (juge des référés) under the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, particularly in cases of urgency or manifestly unlawful disturbance;

Precautionary registration over immovable property, where applicable, through land registry mechanisms, although this is less formalised than in some civil law jurisdictions.

To obtain a saisie conservatoire under Article 54 of the AUPSRVE, the applicant must satisfy two cumulative conditions:

First, the existence of a prima facie claim (créance paraissant fondée en son principe). The claimant is not required to establish the claim definitively, but must demonstrate sufficient evidence of a debt or right that appears credible.

Second, the existence of circumstances threatening recovery (menace dans le recouvrement), namely a risk that the debtor may organise insolvency, dissipate assets, or otherwise frustrate enforcement. In practice, Cameroonian courts adopt a relatively pragmatic approach to this requirement, particularly in cases involving fraud or cross-border elements.

The procedure may be initiated ex parte (without prior notice to the debtor), which is a critical strategic advantage in asset tracing matters. Authorisation is typically granted by the competent court, although where the creditor holds an enforceable title, prior judicial authorisation may not be required.

Once the measure is executed, the creditor is generally required to commence substantive proceedings on the merits within a prescribed timeframe (typically one month), failing which the conservatory measure may lapse.

In practice, saisies conservatoires are among the most effective tools available in Cameroon for asset preservation, particularly when deployed swiftly and in coordination with banking institutions. However, practical challenges may arise due to delays in enforcement and resistance from third-party custodians, which necessitates careful procedural management and local expertise.

Cameroon, as a civil law jurisdiction, does not provide for broad pre-trial disclosure or discovery mechanisms comparable to those available in common law systems. Nevertheless, a combination of judicial, statutory and practical tools may be deployed—both prior to and during proceedings—to identify, trace and secure assets.

At the core of the framework are the provisions of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, which empower the court to order the production of documents (communication de pièces) where such documents are necessary for the resolution of the dispute. Although this mechanism is more limited than common law disclosure, courts may, upon application, compel a party or, in certain circumstances, a third party, to produce relevant evidence.

In parallel, the juge des référés (summary judge) plays a central role in urgent investigative measures. In practice, claimants may seek orders for:

• the appointment of a judicial expert (expert judiciaire) to conduct financial or accounting investigations, particularly in complex fraud or misappropriation cases;
• the preservation and description of assets (mesures conservatoires d’instruction), including on-site inspections (constat d’huissier) carried out by a bailiff;
• targeted orders requiring disclosure of specific information where there is a legitimate interest and urgency.

With respect to asset tracing, the OHADA AUPSRVE provides powerful indirect tools. In particular, saisie conservatoire of receivables (including bank accounts) serves not only to freeze assets but also to identify them, as financial institutions are required to disclose the existence of accounts held by the debtor at the time of the attachment. In practice, this constitutes one of the most effective tracing mechanisms available in Cameroon.

Banking information is further accessible through judicial processes, although it remains subject to banking secrecy obligations. Disclosure may be ordered by a court where it is strictly necessary for the determination of rights, and in practice, cooperation from financial institutions varies depending on the clarity and authority of the judicial order.

In cases involving suspected criminal conduct (such as fraud, breach of trust, or money laundering under Sections 318 and 322 of the Penal Code and CEMAC Regulation No. 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM), civil practitioners frequently coordinate with criminal proceedings. The investigating magistrate (juge d’instruction) has significantly broader powers of inquiry, including the ability to compel disclosure from banks and third parties. In practice, this hybrid civil–criminal strategy is a cornerstone of effective asset tracing in Cameroon.

There is no formal equivalent to Norwich Pharmacal or Bankers Trust orders. However, functional equivalents may be achieved through a combination of:

• targeted judicial applications for document production;
• expert investigations;
• bailiff-led findings (constats);

and strategic use of conservatory attachments to elicit information from third-party holders of assets.

In relation to digital and cross-border assets, claimants often rely on international judicial cooperation mechanisms, including letters rogatory, as well as informal engagement with foreign counsel and forensic specialists. However, practical challenges remain significant, particularly where assets are held through offshore structures or non-cooperative intermediaries.

In practical terms, asset tracing in Cameroon is highly dependent on speed, procedural creativity, and the effective combination of civil, enforcement, and (where appropriate) criminal tools, rather than on expansive disclosure rights. This makes early strategic planning and local procedural expertise critical to successful recovery.

Cameroonian law, grounded in civil law principles and complemented by OHADA instruments, does not formally recognise “proprietary claims” in the common law sense. However, a range of functional equivalents exist which enable claimants to recover misappropriated assets through rights in rem, restitutionary mechanisms, and nullity actions.

The primary remedy is the action en revendication, which allows a claimant to assert ownership over a specific asset and seek its restitution from any person unlawfully in possession. This action is rooted in the fundamental principle of property law that ownership (droit de propriété) is absolute and enforceable erga omnes. It is particularly effective where the asset can be clearly identified and has not been irreversibly mixed or dissipated.

Where direct identification is not possible, claimants may rely on restitutionary claims grounded in unjust enrichment (enrichissement sans cause). Although not codified in a single provision, this principle is well established in civil law and allows recovery where one party has been enriched at the expense of another without lawful justification. This remedy is especially relevant in cases involving indirect transfers or complex transactional chains.

In addition, claimants may bring actions in nullity (nullité) to set aside transactions tainted by fraud (dol), error, or illegality, pursuant to general principles derived from the Civil Code (notably Articles 1108 and 1116 in their classical formulation). Once annulled, the transaction is deemed never to have existed, and the parties are restored to their original positions through restitution.

A particularly important mechanism in asset recovery is the action paulienne (action oblique or action en inopposabilité), which enables a creditor to challenge acts carried out by a debtor in fraud of creditors. Under this doctrine, transactions intended to organise insolvency or dissipate assets may be declared unenforceable against the creditor, thereby allowing recovery against the transferred assets notwithstanding their formal alienation.

In cases involving corporate structures, courts may, in practice, apply doctrines akin to piercing the corporate veil or confusion of patrimonies (confusion des patrimoines), particularly where assets have been deliberately intermingled to obscure ownership. While not expressly codified, such approaches are recognised in Cameroonian jurisprudence and supported by principles derived from the OHADA Uniform Act on Commercial Companies (AUDCG).

Although the concept of a trust is not recognised under OHADA law, courts may, in substance, examine the reality of control and beneficial ownership. This allows claimants to challenge nominee arrangements or fictitious ownership structures where they are used as vehicles for misappropriation.

Furthermore, civil claims may be brought in parallel with criminal proceedings, allowing victims to seek civil damages (constitution de partie civile) and, in certain cases, benefit indirectly from criminal confiscation measures.

In practice, the effectiveness of these remedies depends significantly on the claimant’s ability to:

• identify and trace the asset;
• demonstrate a proprietary nexus or unlawful enrichment;
• and act swiftly to prevent dissipation.

Accordingly, while Cameroonian law does not employ the terminology of constructive trusts or equitable proprietary remedies, it offers a robust and flexible set of civil law tools which, when strategically deployed, can achieve substantially similar outcomes in asset recovery matters.

In Cameroon, limitation periods are primarily governed by the Civil Code (as applicable) and, in commercial matters, by OHADA instruments, notably the Uniform Act on General Commercial Law (AUDCG, Article 16). The applicable limitation period will depend on the nature of the claim (civil, commercial, contractual or tortious).

As a general principle, civil actions are subject to a long-stop limitation period of 30 years (prescription trentenaire), derived from classical civil law principles applicable in Cameroon. However, shorter limitation periods apply in specific contexts.

In commercial matters, Article 16 of the AUDCG provides for a five-year limitation period for obligations arising between traders or in connection with commercial activities. This five-year period is frequently applicable in asset recovery claims involving corporate entities or commercial transactions.

For tortious claims (including fraud, misappropriation and breach of trust), the applicable limitation period is generally aligned with the civil law framework, but in practice courts may consider the commercial nature of the dispute and apply the shorter OHADA limitation period where appropriate.

Importantly, Cameroonian law recognises mechanisms for the suspension (suspension de prescription) and interruption (interruption de prescription) of limitation periods.

Limitation may be suspended in circumstances where the claimant is legally or factually prevented from acting, including cases involving concealment of wrongdoing. More significantly in asset recovery contexts, limitation may be interrupted by:

• the commencement of legal proceedings;
• a formal demand or judicial act;
• or the acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.

In cases involving fraud (dol), concealment or deliberate misappropriation, courts in Cameroon adopt a pragmatic approach consistent with civil law principles, whereby the limitation period is effectively treated as running from the date on which the claimant became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the facts giving rise to the claim. While this “delayed discovery” principle is not always expressly codified, it is recognised in judicial practice as an aspect of good faith and fairness.

Furthermore, where criminal proceedings are initiated in parallel (for example under Sections 318 or 322 of the Penal Code), civil claims attached to the criminal process (constitution de partie civile) may benefit from the procedural timeline of the criminal proceedings, which can have the effect of preserving the claimant’s rights.

In practical terms, limitation is a critical strategic consideration in Cameroon. Given the relative flexibility afforded by suspension and interruption mechanisms, particularly in cases involving fraud or concealment, well-advised claimants are often able to maintain viable recovery actions even where the underlying misconduct dates back several years. However, early action remains strongly advisable to mitigate evidential and enforcement risks.

In Cameroon, the standard of proof in civil asset recovery proceedings is that of the balance of probabilities (prépondérance des probabilités), consistent with general civil law principles. The claimant must establish that it is more likely than not that the alleged facts giving rise to the claim are true, including the existence of the right asserted, the occurrence of the wrongful conduct, and the causal link between the conduct and the loss.

This standard is applied by the civil courts in accordance with the general evidential framework derived from the Civil Code, notably Articles 1315 et seq. (now reflected in modern French numbering as Articles 1353 et seq.), which place the burden on the party asserting a claim to prove it. Evidence may be adduced through documentary proof, witness testimony, expert reports, and presumptions (présomptions judiciaires), which are frequently relied upon in complex asset tracing matters.

By contrast, in criminal proceedings, the applicable standard is significantly higher, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. This standard applies to offences such as fraud (Section 318 of the Penal Code), breach of trust (Section 322), and money laundering under the applicable CEMAC Regulation No. 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 11 April 2016.

The distinction between these standards is of considerable practical importance in asset recovery. Civil proceedings may succeed even where criminal liability cannot be established to the requisite threshold. As such, claimants often pursue civil remedies independently or in parallel with criminal proceedings, particularly where evidential constraints may hinder a criminal conviction but still support a civil finding of liability.

In practice, Cameroonian courts adopt a flexible and pragmatic approach to evidence, especially in cases involving fraud, misappropriation, or complex financial arrangements. While the burden of proof formally rests on the claimant, courts are receptive to circumstantial evidence and factual inferences, provided they are sufficiently serious, precise, and concordant.

In Cameroonian civil proceedings, including asset recovery claims, the burden of proof is governed by classical civil law principles as reflected in the Civil Code (notably Articles 1315 et seq., now 1353 et seq.), according to which he who alleges must prove (actori incumbit probatio). Accordingly, the claimant bears the initial burden of establishing the existence of the right asserted, the wrongful conduct, and the resulting loss.

However, while the burden of proof formally rests with the claimant, Cameroonian courts recognise a number of evidential mechanisms which, in practice, may shift or alleviate that burden, particularly in cases involving fraud, misappropriation, or opaque financial arrangements.

First, courts may rely on judicial presumptions (présomptions judiciaires), whereby facts that are not directly proven may be inferred from a body of serious, precise, and concordant evidence. This is particularly significant in asset tracing cases, where direct evidence of ownership or control is often unavailable. In practice, once a claimant establishes a coherent factual matrix suggesting misappropriation or concealment, the evidential burden may effectively shift to the respondent to provide a credible explanation.

Secondly, in the context of fraudulent conveyances, the action paulienne allows a creditor to challenge transactions entered into in fraud of creditors. Where it is demonstrated that a debtor has transferred assets in circumstances prejudicial to creditors, particularly at an undervalue or without consideration, courts may presume fraudulent intent. In such cases, the respondent may be required to rebut the presumption by establishing the legitimacy and bona fide nature of the transaction.

Thirdly, under the OHADA Uniform Act on Collective Proceedings (AUPCAP), certain transactions entered into during the suspect period (période suspecte) preceding insolvency may be automatically void or subject to nullity, particularly where they are gratuitous, imbalanced, or preferential. In these cases, the burden effectively shifts to the counterparty to justify the transaction, failing which it may be set aside.

In addition, although there is no formal civil regime of unexplained wealth orders, concepts derived from anti-money laundering frameworks—particularly under CEMAC Regulation No. 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 11 April 2016—influence judicial reasoning in practice. Where a respondent is unable to justify the lawful origin of assets in circumstances strongly indicative of illicit enrichment, courts may draw adverse inferences, especially when civil proceedings are conducted alongside criminal investigations.

Finally, evidential burden-shifting may also arise indirectly through procedural conduct, including a party’s failure to produce documents ordered by the court or to cooperate with expert investigations. In such circumstances, courts may infer that the withheld evidence would have been unfavourable to that party.

In practical terms, while the legal burden of proof remains with the claimant, Cameroonian courts adopt a pragmatic and fact-sensitive approach, particularly in fraud and asset recovery cases, allowing for flexible use of presumptions and inferences that can significantly rebalance the evidential position between the parties.

In Cameroonian civil asset recovery proceedings, respondents may rely on a range of substantive and procedural defences derived from the Civil Code, OHADA law, and general principles of civil liability. While the system does not formally recognise certain common law doctrines (such as laches or change of position) in their exact terminology, functional equivalents exist and are applied in practice.

A primary defence is limitation (prescription). As outlined above, claims may be time-barred under the applicable limitation periods, including the five-year period under Article 16 of the OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law (AUDCG) or the longer civil law prescription period. Respondents frequently raise limitation as a preliminary defence, particularly in cases involving historical transactions.

Another central defence is that of good faith acquisition (bonne foi), especially in relation to movable property. Under civil law principles, a purchaser in good faith who acquires property for value may, in certain circumstances, obtain valid title even if the transferor’s title was defective. This defence is particularly relevant where assets have passed through multiple hands. However, its success depends on the nature of the asset and the claimant’s ability to establish prior ownership and bad faith.

Respondents may also rely on the absence of fault or liability, challenging the essential elements of civil liability under Articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code (fault, damage, and causal link). In contractual contexts, defences may include proper performance, absence of breach, or force majeure.

In cases involving restitution or unjust enrichment, respondents may invoke a defence analogous to change of position, arguing that the enrichment has been dissipated in good faith or that restitution would be inequitable. While not formally codified, Cameroonian courts may take such considerations into account under broader principles of fairness and equity.

Where recovery is sought through an action paulienne, respondents may defend the claim by demonstrating that the impugned transaction was entered into in good faith, for legitimate consideration, and without intent to defraud creditors. Similarly, under insolvency proceedings governed by the AUPCAP, parties may seek to justify transactions challenged during the suspect period.

Procedurally, respondents may raise jurisdictional objections, including lack of territorial competence or improper forum, as well as challenges to admissibility (irrecevabilité), such as lack of standing or failure to comply with procedural requirements.

Although the doctrine of laches is not formally recognised, courts may, in practice, take into account undue delay or acquiescence as part of their overall assessment, particularly where such delay has prejudiced the respondent.

Finally, respondents may rely on third-party rights and argue that the asset in question is no longer within their patrimony, or that it is subject to competing claims by third parties acting in good faith.

In practical terms, the effectiveness of these defences depends heavily on the factual matrix and the quality of supporting evidence. Cameroonian courts adopt a pragmatic approach, balancing strict legal principles with considerations of good faith, fairness, and the protection of legitimate commercial expectations.

Cameroonian law affords significant protection to third parties in civil asset recovery proceedings, reflecting fundamental civil law principles relating to property rights, good faith, and due process. These protections are derived from the Civil Code, the OHADA Uniform Act Organising Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution (AUPSRVE), and, where relevant, the Uniform Act on Collective Proceedings (AUPCAP).

A primary mechanism is the ability of third parties to intervene voluntarily in ongoing proceedings (intervention volontaire) under the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. Any party claiming a legal interest in the disputed asset may join the proceedings to assert ownership or other proprietary rights. This is frequently used by co-owners, secured creditors, or transferees.

In the context of enforcement and conservatory measures under the AUPSRVE, third parties may bring a tierce opposition or challenge the seizure through specific proceedings where they claim that the attached asset does not belong to the debtor. In particular, a third party may initiate an action to contest the validity of the seizure (contestation de saisie) or to seek release of the asset (mainlevée) on the basis of ownership or prior rights.

The protection of good faith purchasers (acquéreurs de bonne foi) is a cornerstone of the system, particularly in relation to movable property. Where a third party has acquired an asset for value and without knowledge of any defect in title, civil law principles may protect that acquisition, subject to certain exceptions (notably where the asset is stolen or where registration requirements apply, such as for immovable property).

Secured creditors, including those holding security interests recognised under OHADA law (such as pledges, charges or mortgages), are also afforded priority rights. Under the AUPSRVE and the OHADA security regime, such creditors may assert their ranking and oppose measures that would prejudice their security.

In insolvency contexts governed by the AUPCAP, third parties may assert proprietary claims (revendications) to exclude assets from the debtor’s estate where they can demonstrate that the assets do not form part of the debtor’s patrimony. This is particularly relevant for assets held on consignment, under retention of title clauses, or in analogous arrangements.

From a procedural standpoint, third parties are entitled to due process guarantees, including notification of measures affecting their rights and access to judicial remedies to challenge such measures. Courts will generally require clear proof of ownership or superior rights before ordering the release of assets.

In practice, however, the effectiveness of these protections depends on the third party’s ability to act promptly and substantiate their claim with documentary evidence. Delays in asserting rights or insufficient documentation may significantly weaken a third party’s position.

Overall, while Cameroonian law provides a structured and principled framework for the protection of innocent third parties, litigation strategy, speed of intervention, and evidential preparedness are decisive factors in successfully asserting and preserving such rights.

Cameroon does not yet have a specific statutory framework governing cryptocurrencies or digital assets. Neither OHADA law nor domestic legislation expressly defines or regulates such assets. However, in practice, and by reference to general civil law principles, cryptocurrencies and similar digital assets are increasingly treated as intangible movable property (biens meubles incorporels) capable of forming part of a person’s patrimony.

This classification is consistent with the broad civil law concept of property, which encompasses all assets with economic value capable of appropriation. As such, digital assets may, in principle, be subject to civil recovery proceedings, including seizure and enforcement measures under the OHADA AUPSRVE, although practical implementation remains complex.

Cameroonian law does not recognise the concept of a trust in the common law sense, and therefore cryptocurrencies cannot formally be “held on trust”. However, courts may adopt a substance-over-form approach when analysing the relationship between parties, particularly in cases involving custody arrangements, nominees, or fiduciary-like relationships. In such circumstances, the person exercising control over the digital asset may be distinguished from the person with the underlying economic entitlement.

In terms of remedies, while there is no formal doctrine of proprietary claims in the common law sense, digital assets may nonetheless be subject to functional equivalents, including:

• actions en revendication, where the claimant can establish ownership of identifiable digital assets;
• restitutionary claims based on unjust enrichment;
• nullity actions where transfers have been effected through fraud (dol) or illegality;
• and, in certain cases, fraudulent conveyance actions (action paulienne) where digital assets have been transferred to defeat creditors.

A key practical limitation lies in the requirement of identifiability and traceability. Unlike traditional assets, cryptocurrencies may be pseudonymous and highly mobile, which complicates the establishment of a clear proprietary link. Nevertheless, with appropriate forensic evidence, courts may accept that a claimant has sufficiently identified the asset or its traceable proceeds.

From a regulatory perspective, digital assets may also fall within the broader scope of anti-money laundering frameworks, notably under CEMAC Regulation No. 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 11 April 2016, particularly where they are used in connection with illicit financial flows. While this does not directly establish civil property rights, it reinforces the legitimacy of judicial intervention in tracing and recovering such assets.

In practice, therefore, although the legal framework remains underdeveloped, Cameroonian courts are likely to treat cryptocurrencies as recoverable patrimonial assets, capable of being the subject of civil recovery actions through existing legal mechanisms, provided that the claimant can overcome evidential and technical challenges relating to identification, control, and tracing.

Cameroon does not yet provide a bespoke statutory regime specifically tailored to the freezing or preservation of digital assets. Accordingly, interim relief in this area is obtained through the adaptation of existing civil law and OHADA enforcement mechanisms, primarily under the OHADA Uniform Act Organising Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution (AUPSRVE), complemented by the powers of the juge des référés (Summary Judge) under the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.

The principal mechanism is the saisie conservatoire, which may be extended in practice to digital assets where they can be linked to an identifiable holder or intermediary. In particular:

Where digital assets are held through centralised exchanges or custodial platforms, claimants may obtain a saisie conservatoire of receivables or accounts against the exchange, treating the platform as a third-party debtor (tiers saisi). In such cases, the exchange may be required to freeze the relevant account and disclose information regarding the assets held.

Where digital assets are held in bank-linked environments (for example, fiat on-ramps or accounts associated with trading platforms), traditional bank account attachments under Articles 54 et seq. of the AUPSRVE remain highly effective in indirectly freezing access to digital assets.

The juge des référés may order urgent and targeted measures, including:

• the preservation of digital evidence;
• orders restraining a party from disposing of identified digital assets;
• and, in appropriate cases, the appointment of an expert to secure or analyse digital wallets or transaction histories.

However, where assets are held in non-custodial wallets (private wallets controlled by private keys), enforcement becomes significantly more complex. Cameroonian law does not currently provide a direct mechanism to compel disclosure of private keys or to seize hardware wallets in a technologically effective manner, beyond general seizure of physical devices by a bailiff. In practice, such measures may be of limited utility without the cooperation of the holder.

There is no direct equivalent to Mareva injunctions or proprietary freezing orders as developed in common law jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the combined use of:

• saisies conservatoires;
• targeted judicial orders;
• and third-party attachments against intermediaries,
• allows practitioners to achieve functionally similar outcomes in many cases.

In cross-border scenarios, interim relief may also depend on international cooperation mechanisms, including letters rogatory and coordination with foreign counsel, particularly where exchanges or service providers are located outside the CEMAC region.

From a practical standpoint, the effectiveness of interim relief in relation to digital assets in Cameroon is highly dependent on:

• whether the assets are held with identifiable intermediaries;
• the speed with which measures are obtained and executed;
• and the claimant’s ability to present clear technical evidence linking the assets to the respondent.

As a result, while the legal tools exist in principle, their successful deployment in digital asset cases requires a high degree of procedural agility, technical expertise, and cross-border coordination.

As with traditional assets, Cameroon does not provide for broad discovery or disclosure mechanisms. In the context of digital assets, claimants must therefore rely on a combination of judicial orders, expert investigations, and indirect enforcement tools, adapted to the technological nature of blockchain-based transactions.

From a tracing perspective, claimants typically rely on forensic blockchain analysis conducted by specialised experts (experts judiciaires or private forensic firms). Courts may, upon application, appoint an expert to analyse wallet addresses, transaction flows, and linkages between accounts. Such expert reports are frequently central to establishing the evidential basis of a claim, particularly given the pseudonymous nature of most blockchain systems.

Judicial tools available under the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure allow for targeted orders for the production of documents or information, including against parties suspected of controlling digital assets. In urgent cases, the juge des référés may order the preservation of digital evidence or the disclosure of specific information where there is a legitimate interest and demonstrable urgency.

A key practical mechanism lies in the use of saisies conservatoires against intermediaries under the OHADA AUPSRVE, particularly where digital assets are held through centralised exchanges or custodial service providers. In such cases, the exchange may be treated as a third-party holder (tiers saisi) and compelled to:

• disclose the existence of accounts;
• identify the account holder (subject to KYC data held);
• and freeze or preserve the assets.

However, significant practical challenges arise.

First, many exchanges and service providers are located outside Cameroon or the CEMAC region, meaning that domestic court orders may have limited direct effect. In such cases, claimants must rely on international judicial cooperation mechanisms, including letters rogatory, or engage foreign counsel to obtain mirror orders in the relevant jurisdiction.

Secondly, even where exchanges are identifiable, compliance levels vary considerably. Some platforms cooperate readily with judicial authorities, while others may resist or delay disclosure, particularly in the absence of clear local regulatory obligations.

Thirdly, the effectiveness of tracing is often hindered by the use of:

•  non-custodial wallets, where no intermediary holds identifying information;
• mixing services or tumblers, which obscure transaction trails;
• and cross-chain transfers, which complicate forensic analysis.

Fourthly, banking secrecy and data protection considerations may limit access to information, requiring carefully drafted judicial orders to overcome such barriers.

Finally, Cameroon does not yet have a fully developed regulatory framework specifically addressing virtual asset service providers (VASPs). While CEMAC Regulation No. 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 11 April 2016 provides a general anti-money laundering framework, its application to digital assets remains evolving in practice.

In practical terms, successful tracing and recovery of digital assets in Cameroon requires:

• early engagement of forensic experts;
• rapid deployment of conservatory measures against identifiable intermediaries;
• and coordinated cross-border strategies.

Accordingly, while the legal tools available are capable of supporting digital asset tracing, their effectiveness is heavily dependent on technical expertise, jurisdictional reach, and the responsiveness of third-party service providers.

In Cameroon, the allocation of legal costs in civil proceedings, including asset recovery matters, is governed by the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, supplemented by general principles of civil law and judicial discretion.

The general rule is that costs follow the event (“les dépens suivent la succombance”), meaning that the unsuccessful party is ordinarily ordered to bear the procedural costs of the proceedings. These costs (dépens) typically include:

• court filing fees;
• bailiff (huissier) costs for service and enforcement measures;
• expert fees where a judicial expert has been appointed;
• and other necessary procedural expenses.

However, it is important to distinguish between recoverable court costs (dépens) and legal fees (honoraires d’avocat). As a general rule in Cameroon, lawyers’ fees are not fully recoverable from the losing party. Courts may, at their discretion, award a modest contribution towards legal fees (sometimes framed as damages or indemnity), but this is typically limited and does not reflect the actual costs incurred.

The court retains broad discretion in the allocation of costs. Accordingly, several exceptions to the general rule may arise:

• the court may apportion costs between the parties where each has succeeded on certain issues;
• costs may be adjusted where a party has engaged in procedural misconduct, such as dilatory tactics or abuse of process;
• in equitable circumstances, the court may decide that each party bears its own costs;
• and in urgent or interim proceedings (such as référé applications or conservatory measures), costs may be reserved pending the outcome of the main proceedings.

In asset recovery matters, particularly those involving fraud or bad faith, courts may be more inclined to award costs against the respondent, especially where misconduct is clearly established.

In addition, where proceedings involve multiple parties or third-party interventions, the court may tailor cost orders to reflect the respective roles and responsibilities of each party.

From a practical perspective, cost recovery in Cameroon remains relatively conservative, and claimants should not expect full reimbursement of legal fees even where successful. This reality is a key strategic consideration in asset recovery litigation and often informs decisions regarding settlement, enforcement strategy, and the structuring of legal fee arrangements.

Overall, while the principle that the losing party bears costs is well established, judicial discretion and the limited recoverability of legal fees significantly influence the economic dynamics of civil asset recovery proceedings in Cameroon.

Cameroon does not yet have a comprehensive statutory framework specifically regulating litigation funding or alternative fee arrangements. As a result, the position is largely governed by general principles of contract law, the ethical rules applicable to the legal profession, and judicial practice.

With respect to third-party funding, there is no express prohibition under Cameroonian law. In practice, such arrangements may be structured contractually, particularly in high-value commercial or asset recovery matters. However, the market remains underdeveloped, and there is no formal regulatory regime governing funders, disclosure obligations, or control of proceedings. Consequently, such arrangements must be carefully structured to avoid conflicts with public policy or professional ethics.

Contingency fees (pacte de quota litis) are traditionally viewed with caution in civil law jurisdictions. While Cameroonian practice does not expressly prohibit success-based elements in fee arrangements, pure contingency fee agreements (where the lawyer’s remuneration depends exclusively on the outcome) are generally considered inconsistent with professional ethics. In practice, hybrid arrangements are more common, combining a fixed or hourly fee with a success fee component.

There is no formal recognition of conditional fee agreements or damages-based agreements in the common law sense. Nonetheless, parties are free to structure bespoke fee arrangements, subject to compliance with ethical obligations, including reasonableness, transparency, and independence of counsel.

Other alternative funding mechanisms may include:

• corporate funding within group structures;
• insurance-backed litigation (where applicable), although this remains limited in Cameroon;
• and informal private funding arrangements, particularly in cross-border disputes.

As regards security for costs, Cameroonian law does not provide a systematic or codified regime equivalent to that found in common law jurisdictions. However, courts may, in certain circumstances, require a claimant—particularly a foreign claimant without sufficient presence or assets in the jurisdiction—to provide security, based on general procedural powers and principles of fairness.

In practice, such orders are relatively rare and discretionary, and there is no standardised test. The court will typically consider factors such as:

• the claimant’s residence or domicile;
• the apparent merits of the claim;
• and the risk of non-recovery of costs by the defendant.

More commonly, cost-related risks are managed indirectly through:

• the limited recoverability of legal fees;
• and the requirement for claimants to bear upfront procedural and enforcement costs (including bailiff and expert fees).

From a strategic perspective, the absence of a developed funding framework means that claimants must often rely on self-funding or bespoke private arrangements, particularly in complex asset recovery matters. Nonetheless, the legal framework is sufficiently flexible to accommodate innovative funding structures, provided they are carefully aligned with local legal and ethical constraints.

In Cameroon, the interaction between insolvency proceedings and civil asset recovery is principally governed by the OHADA Uniform Act on Collective Proceedings for the Wiping Off of Debts (AUPCAP, revised 10 September 2015), which establishes a comprehensive and mandatory framework applicable to all commercial entities within OHADA Member States.

Once collective proceedings (preventive settlement, judicial reorganisation, or liquidation) are opened, they have a significant impact on individual civil recovery actions. In particular, the opening judgment triggers a stay of individual enforcement proceedings (arrêt des poursuites individuelles) against the debtor, preventing creditors from pursuing separate recovery actions or enforcing claims outside the collective process. This reflects the fundamental principle of equality of creditors (parité des créanciers).

However, this stay primarily affects personal claims (droits de créance) and does not extinguish or necessarily bar proprietary or quasi-proprietary claims.

Claimants asserting ownership rights (actions en revendication) over specific assets may pursue such claims within the insolvency proceedings. Under the AUPCAP, assets that do not form part of the debtor’s patrimony must be excluded from the insolvency estate, provided that the claimant can establish a valid proprietary right and sufficiently identify the asset. This is particularly relevant in cases involving:

• retention of title clauses;
• consignment arrangements;
• or assets held on behalf of third parties.

Where such claims are successful, the claimant benefits from a priority position, as the asset is effectively removed from the pool available to creditors.

Similarly, claims based on tracing or restitutionary principles (for example, where misappropriated funds can be identified or followed into substitute assets) may be recognised in practice, although the absence of formal tracing doctrines requires claimants to frame their arguments within civil law constructs such as revendication or unjust enrichment. The success of such claims depends heavily on the ability to demonstrate a clear and direct link between the original asset and the asset held by the debtor.

In contrast, claimants whose rights are purely personal (unsecured creditors) must declare their claims (déclaration de créance) and participate in the collective distribution. Their recovery is subject to the ranking of claims established under the AUPCAP, which prioritises, inter alia:

• super-priority claims (such as certain employee claims);
• secured creditors holding valid security interests under OHADA law;
• followed by unsecured creditors.

In addition, the AUPCAP provides mechanisms to challenge pre-insolvency transactions, including nullity of acts carried out during the suspect period (période suspecte), particularly where such acts are gratuitous, imbalanced, or preferential. These avoidance actions may complement civil recovery strategies by restoring assets to the estate for the benefit of creditors.

From a practical perspective, asset recovery strategies must be carefully adapted once insolvency proceedings are opened. While the collective framework may restrict unilateral enforcement, it also offers structured avenues for recovery, particularly where proprietary rights can be established or assets can be excluded from the estate.

In summary, insolvency does not extinguish civil asset recovery rights but reconfigures them within a collective and priority-driven framework, where proprietary claims enjoy a superior position, and unsecured claims are subject to the rules of distribution under OHADA law.

In Cameroon, the treatment of claims relating to misappropriated assets in insolvency is governed by the OHADA Uniform Act on Collective Proceedings for the Wiping Off of Debts (AUPCAP, revised 10 September 2015), which establishes a structured regime balancing collective creditor interests with the protection of proprietary rights.

Where insolvency proceedings are opened against the wrongdoer or an intermediary, claims for the recovery of misappropriated assets are distinguished according to their legal nature, namely whether they are proprietary (in rem) or purely personal (in personam).

Where the claimant can establish a proprietary right over the asset, typically through an action en revendication, the asset is treated as not forming part of the debtor’s estate. In such cases, the claimant may seek restitution of the asset within the insolvency proceedings. This applies, in particular, where the misappropriated asset remains identifiable or where it can be sufficiently linked to a substitute asset. Successful revendication confers a priority position, as the asset is excluded from distribution to creditors.

Conversely, where the asset has been dissipated or can no longer be identified, the claimant is generally reduced to a personal claim for damages or restitution, which must be declared in the insolvency (déclaration de créance). In this scenario, the claimant ranks alongside other creditors, typically as an unsecured creditor, unless a specific security or privilege can be established.

The AUPCAP also provides robust clawback and avoidance mechanisms, which play a central role in asset recovery within insolvency. Transactions entered into during the suspect period (période suspecte) preceding the opening of proceedings may be:

• automatically void (nullités de plein droit), particularly in the case of gratuitous transfers or manifestly imbalanced transactions;
• or voidable (nullités facultatives) where they are deemed prejudicial to creditors or indicative of preferential treatment.

These provisions are highly relevant in cases of misappropriation, as they allow the insolvency practitioner (syndic) or, in certain circumstances, creditors, to reintegrate improperly transferred assets into the insolvency estate. This may include transfers to related parties, nominees, or intermediaries used to conceal assets.

The relationship between civil recovery and insolvency avoidance is therefore complementary but distinct. Civil recovery actions (such as revendication, nullity for fraud, or unjust enrichment) are typically pursued by individual claimants to recover specific assets. In contrast, avoidance actions under the AUPCAP are pursued in the collective interest of creditors, with any recovered assets being redistributed according to statutory priorities.

In practice, there is often strategic interplay between these mechanisms:

• a claimant may pursue a proprietary claim to extract assets from the estate;
• failing which, reliance may be placed on insolvency clawback provisions to ensure that misappropriated assets are at least returned to the estate;
• and in parallel, civil or criminal proceedings may continue against third parties involved in the dissipation of assets.

Where an intermediary (such as a nominee or affiliated company) is itself insolvent, similar principles apply. The claimant must establish a proprietary link to the asset within that entity’s estate or otherwise participate as a creditor.

From a practical standpoint, the key determinants of outcome are:

• the traceability and identifiability of the asset;
• the timing of the impugned transactions relative to the suspect period;
• and the ability to coordinate civil, insolvency, and, where appropriate, criminal proceedings.

In summary, Cameroonian law provides a coherent framework in which proprietary recovery claims and insolvency avoidance mechanisms operate in tandem, allowing for both individual restitution and collective redress, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Asset tracing and recovery in Cameroon present a number of structural, procedural, and practical challenges, which require a highly strategic and often cross-border approach.

A primary challenge lies in the increasing use of complex and layered ownership structures, including offshore companies, nominee arrangements, and informal fiduciary relationships. While the OHADA Uniform Act on Commercial Companies (AUDCG) provides a framework for corporate transparency, in practice, beneficial ownership information is often difficult to obtain, particularly where structures extend beyond the OHADA space into offshore jurisdictions.

Closely related is the difficulty of dealing with cross-border asset flows. Many asset recovery matters involve funds transferred through multiple jurisdictions, including financial centres outside the CEMAC region. The effectiveness of recovery efforts is therefore heavily dependent on international cooperation, which may be slow, fragmented, or, in some jurisdictions, limited by legal or political constraints.

Another significant obstacle is banking secrecy and limited access to financial information. Although courts may order disclosure, and banks are required to comply with judicial decisions, in practice:

• obtaining timely and complete information can be challenging;
• financial institutions may adopt a cautious or restrictive approach to disclosure;
• and informal barriers may delay execution of orders.

The absence of broad disclosure or discovery mechanisms further compounds these difficulties. Unlike common law jurisdictions, Cameroon does not provide tools such as Norwich Pharmacal or Bankers Trust orders. As a result, practitioners must rely on indirect methods, including saisies conservatoires, expert investigations, and strategic use of criminal proceedings to access information.

Non-cooperative intermediaries represent an additional challenge. This includes:

• local or foreign financial institutions;
• corporate service providers;
• and, increasingly, digital asset platforms.

Where such intermediaries are located outside Cameroon, enforcing compliance with local court orders may require parallel proceedings in foreign jurisdictions.

Enforcement inefficiencies also pose practical difficulties. While the OHADA AUPSRVE provides a robust legal framework for enforcement, in practice:

• delays in execution;
• logistical constraints in asset seizure;
• and resistance from debtors or third parties,

may undermine the effectiveness of recovery measures.

The rise of digital assets introduces further complexity. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based assets are inherently difficult to trace and seize, particularly where held in non-custodial wallets or transferred through anonymising mechanisms.

From a procedural standpoint, challenges also arise from:

• lengthy judicial timelines;
• the need for high-quality documentary evidence, which may be difficult to obtain;
• and the fragmentation of proceedings across civil, criminal, and insolvency jurisdictions.

Finally, there are practical and cultural considerations, including:

• the need for strong local enforcement coordination (particularly with bailiffs and court officials);
• and varying levels of institutional responsiveness depending on the nature of the case.

In practical terms, successful asset recovery in Cameroon requires:

• early and proactive intervention, particularly through conservatory measures;
• multijurisdictional coordination with foreign counsel and forensic experts;
• and a hybrid strategy combining civil, criminal, and insolvency tools.

Accordingly, while the legal framework is robust in principle, the principal challenges are operational, evidential, and strategic, making experience, speed, and cross-border capability decisive factors in achieving effective recovery outcomes.

In Cameroon, asset recovery strategy requires a careful calibration of civil, criminal, and, where relevant, insolvency proceedings, taking into account procedural efficiency, evidential advantages, and enforcement prospects. The legal framework allows for considerable flexibility, but the absence of extensive disclosure mechanisms makes strategic sequencing and combination of actions particularly critical.

When selecting between civil causes of action, practitioners must consider the nature of the right asserted and the evidential position. For instance:

• an action en revendication is preferable where the asset can be clearly identified and ownership established, as it may allow recovery outside the debtor’s patrimony and, in insolvency, confer priority;
• contractual or tortious claims (based on breach of contract or fault under Articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code) are more appropriate where the asset has been dissipated and recovery must be pursued through damages;
• nullity actions (nullité pour dol) are strategically valuable where transactions can be unwound;
• and the action paulienne is particularly effective in challenging asset transfers designed to defeat creditors.

A key strategic consideration is whether to pursue standalone civil proceedings or parallel proceedings alongside criminal or regulatory actions.

Civil proceedings offer advantages of speed, control, and a lower standard of proof (balance of probabilities). They are often the preferred route for obtaining interim measures, such as saisies conservatoires under the OHADA AUPSRVE, which can secure assets at an early stage.

By contrast, criminal proceedings—particularly under the Penal Code (e.g., Sections 318 and 322) and CEMAC AML Regulation No. 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 11 April 2016—provide access to powerful investigative tools, including compelled disclosure, search and seizure, and broader evidential powers through the investigating magistrate (juge d’instruction). As such, they are frequently used to complement civil recovery efforts, especially in complex fraud cases.

In practice, a hybrid strategy is often adopted, combining:

• immediate civil conservatory measures to freeze assets;
• followed by or conducted in parallel with criminal proceedings to gather evidence and exert pressure on respondents;
• and, where applicable, insolvency proceedings to maximise recovery.

However, the pursuit of parallel proceedings raises issues of coordination and potential procedural interaction.

Cameroonian law recognises the principle that “le criminel tient le civil en l’état” (the criminal proceedings take precedence over civil proceedings). Accordingly, where a criminal case is pending and involves substantially the same facts, the civil court may:

• stay the civil proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal matter; or
• proceed cautiously, particularly where the criminal findings may influence civil liability.

That said, such stays are not automatic and remain subject to judicial discretion. In practice, courts will consider factors such as:

• the degree of overlap between the proceedings;
• the stage of the criminal investigation;
• and the risk of prejudice to the parties.

Importantly, civil proceedings aimed at preserving assets (e.g., saisies conservatoires) are generally not prevented by ongoing criminal proceedings and may be pursued urgently to avoid dissipation.

From a strategic standpoint, practitioners must also consider:

• limitation periods and interruption mechanisms;
• the location of assets and enforceability of judgments;
• the availability of evidence;
• and the risk of asset dissipation during procedural delays.

In practical terms, the most effective approach in Cameroon is typically proactive and multi-layered, combining rapid civil action with targeted use of criminal processes, while carefully managing procedural interactions between jurisdictions.

Accordingly, the choice of cause of action and procedural pathway is not merely technical but central to the success of asset recovery, requiring a nuanced understanding of both the legal framework and the operational realities of enforcement.

In Cameroon, the most significant recent developments affecting asset recovery practice have been regulatory and compliance-driven rather than case-law driven. In particular, asset recovery strategy is increasingly shaped by the continuing influence of the CEMAC anti-money laundering framework, by international pressure relating to beneficial ownership transparency, and by the practical consequences of Cameroon’s continued appearance on the FATF list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring in 2024, 2025 and again in February 2026. That status is not an asset recovery regime in itself, but it has materially increased scrutiny of customer due diligence, source-of-funds verification, suspicious transaction reporting, and cross-border cooperation expectations.

A first clear trend is the growing centrality of AML/CFT rules in civil recovery work. Although the principal regional text remains CEMAC Regulation No. 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 11 April 2016, the operational environment has tightened because financial institutions and regulated intermediaries are under stronger pressure to document beneficial ownership, monitor unusual transactions, and cooperate with competent authorities. In practice, this makes banking evidence, compliance records, KYC files, and suspicious transaction indicators increasingly important in fraud and tracing matters, even where the proceedings themselves are civil.

A second major trend is the continued weakness, but rising importance, of beneficial ownership transparency. The GABAC/FATF mutual evaluation identified the absence of an effective mechanism for collecting beneficial ownership information on legal persons in Cameroon, and this remains one of the most important structural constraints in recovery work. For practitioners, the practical consequence is that tracing often still depends less on a reliable public register and more on litigation tools, banking material, company records, bailiff findings, and cross-border intelligence. At the same time, the direction of travel is plainly toward greater transparency, because beneficial ownership remains a recurring theme in FATF monitoring and wider anti-corruption policy.

A third development is the greater practical relevance of cross-border enforcement and international cooperation. Asset recovery matters involving Cameroon increasingly require coordination with foreign banks, offshore corporate registries, digital intermediaries, and overseas counsel. This is consistent with broader international developments under the United Nations Convention against Corruption, where asset recovery and international cooperation continue to be emphasised as core implementation priorities. In practical terms, Cameroonian matters now more frequently require a combined use of domestic conservatory measures, foreign recognition steps, and mutual legal assistance channels.

A fourth emerging trend is the growing relevance of digital assets and technologically enabled financial crime, even though Cameroon still lacks a bespoke civil recovery regime for cryptoassets. International policy materials published in 2025 and 2026 show a clear global shift toward more aggressive treatment of digitalised financial crime, corruption-linked flows, and asset recovery best practice. In Cameroonian practice, this does not yet translate into a mature domestic body of crypto-specific case law, but it does mean that forensic tracing, intermediary cooperation, and AML-based information gathering are becoming more important in matters involving digital payment channels or virtual assets.

As to sanctions regimes, Cameroon does not presently operate a high-profile autonomous sanctions architecture comparable to the UK, EU or US systems; however, sanctions-related compliance is becoming more relevant indirectly through banking practice, correspondent banking pressure, and AML screening culture. In cross-border recovery matters, this means that practitioners increasingly have to consider whether counterparties, payment chains, or beneficial owners may trigger enhanced scrutiny by foreign institutions, even where the domestic proceedings are framed as ordinary civil recovery actions. This is, at present, more a matter of transactional reality and international compliance spillover than of a distinct local sanctions recovery regime.

Finally, there does not appear to have been a single transformative recent reported Cameroonian case redefining civil asset recovery in the way sometimes seen in common law jurisdictions. The more important development is instead a progressive convergence of civil recovery practice with AML compliance, insolvency tools, and cross-border enforcement strategy. In practical terms, the modern trend in Cameroon is toward earlier use of conservatory measures, closer reliance on financial intelligence and compliance material, and more sophisticated multi-jurisdictional coordination when assets are moved through layered structures or foreign intermediaries.