A Shareholder Sues as Homebuyers Close in on Key Housing Finance Solution

Jun 27 , 2026. By NAHOM AYELE ( FORTUNE STAFF WRITER )

Former Deputy Chief Executive, who holds a 20pc equity stake in Key Housing Finance Solutions Plc, has filed a lawsuit against the company's General Manager and the Board Chairman at the Trade & Investment Bench of the Federal First Instance Court. Also a General Manager at Abbay TV, Girum Yilma served as the public face during the company’s rapid expansion. The very figure who used his media profile to persuade subscribers to trust the housing-finance model is now legally contesting the firm's transparency. The internal litigation marks a stark departure from the company's initial, ambitious plan to build 100,000 homes over 10 years, threatening to erode remaining public confidence.

Shareholders and senior managers of Key Housing Finance Solutions Plc are turning on one another, as a wave of homebuyer lawsuits alleging "fraud" and heavy financial losses converges on a company that had promised to widen access to affordable housing.

Launched with a plan to build 100,000 homes over 10 years, Key Housing now faces legal action from inside its own ownership and management. Its former Deputy Chief Executive, Girum Yilma, who holds a 20pc equity stake, has sued the company, the General Manager, Selam Yilma, and its Board Chairman, Nadew Getahun. The case was filed before the Trade & Investment Bench of the Federal First Instance Court on Haile Selassie St., in Piassa area.

Also a general manager at Abbay TV, Girum was the public face during Key Housing's rapid expansion, leading engagement with prospective buyers and representing the company in media appearances and public announcements. His profile helped persuade many subscribers to trust the company and its housing-finance model. According to Girum, that confidence is now gone, and he has turned to the courts to contest the company's operations.

In his statement of claim, Girum argued he resorted to litigation after concluding that "the company is operating completely outside standard procedures and regulations, failing to observe the basic principles of transparency and accountability."

"This is seriously harming the rights and interests of both shareholders and ordinary individuals who continue saving with the belief that the company will eventually make them homeowners," he said in his statement.

Represented by Haymanot Molla, an attorney at law, Girum's suit initially rested on five claims. The first concerned an attempt to secure loans using houses built or acquired with subscribers' savings as collateral. Alleging the decision as "unlawful and against buyers' interests," Girum appealed to the judges to block it.

"They must stop this immediately," Girum argued through his lawyer. "If the company defaults on the loan, the lender will inevitably dispose of the houses to recover its money. Such an outcome would harm the interests of homebuyers and push the company toward total collapse."

Girum also disputed the company's procurement process, arguing that the bids for hiring construction contractors and their administration breached the company's own rules and procedures.

According to the filing, Key Housing was founded as a rotating savings-based housing finance model, allowing individuals who cannot afford an upfront purchase to acquire homes through long-term monthly savings matched to their means, while returning value to shareholders. Instead, Girum alleged, current management has adopted practices that undermine subscribers, damage shareholder value, and erode public confidence.

The Plaintiff also argued that management has never allowed an independent external audit of the company's accounts, "leaving shareholders blind to its true position." Girum claims that despite repeated formal requests for such an audit, his appeals were ignored. He pleaded to the Court to appoint an independent external auditor to examine the records and file an official report.

The suit also alleges that the General Manager and the Board Chairman are related, and that "keeping the company's finances under family control, with corporate accounts requiring only their joint signatures, has weakened internal checks." Warning of a "significant risk," Girum appealed to the Court to strip the two of exclusive control over finances and to hand financial management over to independent professionals.

The Court was not persuaded that the claim was ready. After reviewing the initial filing, Judge Shiferaw Abebe of the Trade & Investment Bench ruled that several aspects lacked clarity and ordered Girum to amend and refile.

The Judge told the plaintiff to clarify whether "professional financial management" meant removing the current executives, and to specify how the existing structure violates the company's bylaws. He questioned the allegation that management intended to use completed houses as collateral for loans, ordering Girum to state the amount of financing, identify the units offered as collateral, specify how many properties are involved, and explain why the arrangement would breach company rules.

On procurement, the Judge probed whether the alleged violations concern bids already awarded or still to come, and directed the plaintiff to give the monetary value of the bids and show how the process breached internal rules.

Refiling his suit, the plaintiff abandoned the earlier submissions and narrowed the case to a single issue. He appealed to the Court only to appoint an independent external auditor.

Defendants filed their response to the amended claim on Thursday, June 25, 2026, and a hearing for oral arguments is set for July.

Since its incorporation in March 2023, the company has undergone a quiet but substantial redistribution of its one million Birr paid-up capital. Initially, the company had 100 shares, each valued at 10,000 Br, tightly controlled by three founding shareholders. Nadew Getahun held a commanding 80-share majority, while Elsa Girma held 18 shares, and Yesunesh Yirdaw retained a nominal two shares.

​Yet, this proved short-lived, giving way to a sudden influx of new stakeholders that transformed the ownership structure. A secondary list of shareholders abruptly emerged, holding exactly 80 shares combined. This new bloc was led by Hirut Getahun, who took a dominant position with 69 shares, supported by Thomas Gashaw with five, alongside Musie Argaw and Natan Girma holding three shares each.

​The corporate reshuffling did not end with that initial changing of shareholders. In a subsequent change, Girum entered the fray, negotiating a 20pc stake in the firm, acquiring 12 shares from the new majority holder, and another eight shares from founding shareholder, Elsa.

The shareholder suit lands as Key Housing faces mounting pressure from subscribers. Two groups of homebuyers have filed separate suits in different courts, seeking nearly 40 million Br in refunds, legal fees and compensation. Other groups are preparing to follow.

According to the plaintiffs, Key Housing breached its contracts by failing to deliver the housing-finance scheme it had promised after the collapse of the individual performance guarantee issued by Bunna Insurance. According to their submissions, the guarantee, for which subscribers paid extra premiums, formed a core part of the arrangement, and the replacement later offered by the Ethiopian Insurance Company (EIC) did not provide equivalent protection against developer non-performance.

Beyond the failed guarantee, they accuse Key Housing of misrepresenting its model and running what they describe as an "illegal pyramid-style scheme," alleging that money from new subscribers is being used to meet obligations owed to earlier buyers.

They alleged the company operated "beyond its licensed activities," engaging directly in real estate development and construction, failed to deliver the quality of housing promised in its promotional materials, favoured newly registered subscribers over earlier buyers in allocations, and unilaterally cancelled the contracts of customers who contested its practices.

PUBLISHED ON Jun 27,2026 [ VOL 27 , NO 1365]