![Soprim Construction SARL v The Republic of Djibouti & others [2026] EWHC 1850 (Comm) - how a state's grip on a container terminal ended in a London charging order](https://images.zeno.fm/Hu3S142HQf5zj2OwJN_Z7g-oYHC4qz484r_G7kHS7ZI/rs:fill:256:256/q:75/g:ce:0:0/aHR0cHM6Ly9iZXlvbmR3b3Jkc25lcHJvZHVjdGlvbi5ibG9iLmNvcmUud2luZG93cy5uZXQvcHJvZHVjdGlvbi9wdWJsaWMtdXBsb2FkLzIwMjQtMDYtMTEvZmM0NmJhYTItMzdhZS00NWNmLTk0OTItMTI5ZWFjYTBkNDEwLUV4cGxvcmluZyUyME9mZnNob3JlJTIwTGl0aWdhdGlvbi1taW4uanBnP3U9MTc4NTkyMzYwMTAwMA)
03 August 2026
Soprim Construction SARL v The Republic of Djibouti & others [2026] EWHC 1850 (Comm) - how a state's grip on a container terminal ended in a London charging order
Exploring Offshore Litigation
About
The English High Court has held that a Djiboutian container terminal operator (DCT) held over US$41 million in shipping profits on trust for the Republic of Djibouti (the Republic) in bank accounts in London[FG1.1]. This finding enabled a contractor (Soprim) with unsatisfied arbitral awards against the Republic to obtain a charging order in respect of the entire sum, despite the fact that Soprim had no judgment against DCT directly.
Djibouti occupies a strategic position at the entrance to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, astride one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The Doraleh Container Terminal was constructed to capture revenue from that traffic pursuant to a 2006 concession agreement governed by English law.
Soprim, a construction sub-contractor closely involved in the terminal's construction, fell into dispute with the Djiboutian government after its general manager declined to support the president's bid for a third term. An arbitral tribunal subsequently found in Soprim's favour, that the Republic had waged a campaign of "persecution" against Soprim, awarding it US$56 million for the destruction of its business in May 2018, together with a further c.US$28 million in interest and costs in July 2018. None of those awards were satisfied.
The Republic had moved against the terminal itself, seizing it, expelling staff, and transferring its assets by decree. It subsequently procured the appointment, by Djiboutian courts, of an administrator and then a liquidator, both closely aligned with the government, in each instance without notice to the other shareholder. Meanwhile, the terminal's profits of c.US$41.6 million held across six accounts at Standard Chartered Bank in London remained frozen pursuant to a 2017 worldwide freezing order obtained by Soprim after it learned that the funds might be diverted to the Republic.
Soprim subsequently sought a charging order, contending that DCT secretly held those accounts on trust for the Republic.
The central issue was whether the administrator or liquidator had agreed, on the company's behalf, to hold the funds on trust for the Republic. Soprim submitted that such an agreement should be inferred from the Republic's control; the objecting parties maintained that no evidence of any such arrangement existed.
Lacking direct proof, Soprim relied on circumstantial evidence and invited the court to infer an agreement, adopting the approach to drawing inferences endorsed in the English case of Invest Bank v El-Husseini .
English law permits a trust to be inferred from conduct alone: as the English Court of Appeal held in Paul v Constance, a trust may arise from words or conduct even where the parties are unfamiliar with the underlying legal concept, and need not be formally declared.
The judge found the inference compelling, citing the president's demonstrated total control over the Djiboutian state, the administrator's pattern of favouring the Republic over the company they were appointed to serve (echoing the reasoning in Kazakhstan Kagazy v Zhunus that true ownership may be inferred where a person exercises control over assets ostensibly owned by another) and the fact that the accounts had consistently been used to channel profits toward the Republic.
No witness for the Republic gave evidence to rebut the arrangement, notwithstanding the opportunity to do so, and the judge treated that silence as significant. He rejected the argument, drawn from Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria, that merely acting on presidential instruction could not amount to an intention to create a trust, reasoning instead that the president's wish for the arrangement was itself evidence of the requisite intention. The trust was accordingly established.
The court granted Soprim, among other orders, a final charging order over the entire London accounts.
Harneys does not practise the law of England and Wales, but the decision offers commonwealth practitioners a useful illustration of how the English courts a...
Djibouti occupies a strategic position at the entrance to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, astride one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The Doraleh Container Terminal was constructed to capture revenue from that traffic pursuant to a 2006 concession agreement governed by English law.
Soprim, a construction sub-contractor closely involved in the terminal's construction, fell into dispute with the Djiboutian government after its general manager declined to support the president's bid for a third term. An arbitral tribunal subsequently found in Soprim's favour, that the Republic had waged a campaign of "persecution" against Soprim, awarding it US$56 million for the destruction of its business in May 2018, together with a further c.US$28 million in interest and costs in July 2018. None of those awards were satisfied.
The Republic had moved against the terminal itself, seizing it, expelling staff, and transferring its assets by decree. It subsequently procured the appointment, by Djiboutian courts, of an administrator and then a liquidator, both closely aligned with the government, in each instance without notice to the other shareholder. Meanwhile, the terminal's profits of c.US$41.6 million held across six accounts at Standard Chartered Bank in London remained frozen pursuant to a 2017 worldwide freezing order obtained by Soprim after it learned that the funds might be diverted to the Republic.
Soprim subsequently sought a charging order, contending that DCT secretly held those accounts on trust for the Republic.
The central issue was whether the administrator or liquidator had agreed, on the company's behalf, to hold the funds on trust for the Republic. Soprim submitted that such an agreement should be inferred from the Republic's control; the objecting parties maintained that no evidence of any such arrangement existed.
Lacking direct proof, Soprim relied on circumstantial evidence and invited the court to infer an agreement, adopting the approach to drawing inferences endorsed in the English case of Invest Bank v El-Husseini .
English law permits a trust to be inferred from conduct alone: as the English Court of Appeal held in Paul v Constance, a trust may arise from words or conduct even where the parties are unfamiliar with the underlying legal concept, and need not be formally declared.
The judge found the inference compelling, citing the president's demonstrated total control over the Djiboutian state, the administrator's pattern of favouring the Republic over the company they were appointed to serve (echoing the reasoning in Kazakhstan Kagazy v Zhunus that true ownership may be inferred where a person exercises control over assets ostensibly owned by another) and the fact that the accounts had consistently been used to channel profits toward the Republic.
No witness for the Republic gave evidence to rebut the arrangement, notwithstanding the opportunity to do so, and the judge treated that silence as significant. He rejected the argument, drawn from Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria, that merely acting on presidential instruction could not amount to an intention to create a trust, reasoning instead that the president's wish for the arrangement was itself evidence of the requisite intention. The trust was accordingly established.
The court granted Soprim, among other orders, a final charging order over the entire London accounts.
Harneys does not practise the law of England and Wales, but the decision offers commonwealth practitioners a useful illustration of how the English courts a...