In recent decades, the technical handling of custody business in the
OHADA region has undergone a lasting change. There has been a shift from
a direct to an indirect holding system, in which the interests of an
investor in respect of the underlying securities are recorded in the
books of an intermediary (such as a bank or a securities firm). Under
the law of all states within the OHADA region, the traditional conflict
of laws rule for determining the enforceability of a securities pledge
that occurs in the indirect holding system is the lex rei sitae (or the
lex cartae sitae or the lex situs) rule. However, the traditional lex
rei sitae rule cannot be appropriately applied to a system where the
dematerialised securities are held through multiple layers of
intermediaries located in different jurisdictions. Yet, until the
intermediated system and the collateralisation of intermediated
securities in the OHADA region will continue to operate in somewhat
legally murky waters, leading to more instability in the financial
markets. Therefore, Justin Monsenepwoaims to find an appropriate and
consistent approach that reflects the reality of the indirect holding
system in the OHADA region.