French court validates disputed sale of rare Gabonese Fang mask

The 4.2 million euro auction sale of a rare African sculpted mask, initially purchased for 150 euros by a second-hand dealer from an octogenarian couple, was validated on Tuesday by the French courts, which ruled that there had been no deception.

The Gabonese government, which intervened at the hearing at the end of October to demand the cancellation of the mask sales and the restitution of this cultural asset, was also dismissed by the court in Alès (Gard).

In any case, the court found that the mask's original owners, a retired 88-year-old court clerk and his 81-year-old wife, who had called in a second-hand dealer to get rid of the junk they had accumulated in their holiday home in the Gard region in September 2021, "had shown no diligence in appreciating the fair historical and artistic value of the property".

Among these seemingly worthless objects was a carved wooden mask belonging to a grandfather, a former colonial governor in Africa, which they eventually sold for 150 euros, along with spears, a circumcision knife, bellows and musical instruments.

At an auction in Montpellier (south of France) in March 2022, this "extremely rare 19th-century mask, the prerogative of a secret society of the Fang people in Gabon", of which only a dozen or so remain in the world, was sold for 4.2 million euros, excluding costs.

At an auction in Montpellier (south of France) in March 2022, this "extremely rare 19th-century mask, the prerogative of a secret society of the Fang people in Gabon", of which only a dozen remain in the world, was sold for 4.2 million euros, excluding costs, to an anonymous buyer, virtually a record for an object of this type.

The catalog of the Montpellier auction house stated that this rare object had been "collected around 1917, under unknown circumstances, by the French colonial governor René-Victor Edward Maurice Fournier (1873-1931), probably during a tour of Gabon".

The couple, both in their eighties, asked the courts to cancel the sale of the mask "due to the error made regarding its authenticity", which "vitiated their consent". They also claimed that the dealer had deceived them in that he "was not unaware of the real value of the mask or, at the very least, had doubts about it". According to them, this was evidenced by the fact that he had quickly commissioned expert appraisals after the purchase.

- Negligence" on the part of the sellers -

"Their negligence and carelessness characterize the inexcusable nature" of the plaintiffs' claim, replied the court, which therefore did not grant their request to cancel the sale or recover the amount paid by the final buyer.

"My clients have fallen off their chairs", reacted Frédéric Mansat-Jaffré, the couple's lawyer, who is not ruling out an appeal: "With this decision, the court has created a new jurisprudence, (...) an obligation to provide information. You, me, all individuals will now have to ask a professional, before going to another professional..."

In its decision, the court also ruled that it had not been proven that the dealer, "prior to the sale, (...) was aware of the singular value of the mask sold". He "had no specific knowledge of African art", the court added.

After obtaining initial estimates valuing the mask at between 100 and 600 euros, the secondhand dealer contacted the Montpellier (south of France) auction house, during a sale of African art objects. Extensive analysis enabled the 19th-century Fang mask to be dated and valued at between 300,000 and 400,000 euros.

"The law has been applied correctly", reacted Me Patriciat Pijot, the second-hand dealer's lawyer: "The argument I insisted on at the hearing has been heard. The people who knew most about the value of the mask were the sellers, as they had had this object in their home for a long time".

At the hearing, the shopkeeper denied any intention to defraud. As proof of his honesty, his lawyer recalled, he had even offered to pay the couple 300,000 euros, the amount of the auctioneers' initial bid.

A memorandum of understanding to this effect was due to be signed at the end of April 2022. But, as the court recalls, it failed in the face of opposition from the couple's children.