INTRODUCTION
Enforcement of foreign judgments is a vital element of modern legal regimes in an increasingly globalized world. As cross-border trade, investment, migration, and global cooperation increase, individuals and corporations tend to obtain judgments in one nation that must be enforced in another. In Commonwealth, where countries share a common history, common law tradition, and similar judicial systems, the question of enforcing foreign decrees takes on special significance.

In the Kenyan context, enforcement and recognition of foreign Commonwealth decrees are both useful in practice and significant for legal purpose. In practice, they ensure that litigants who have successfully secured judgments in a foreign jurisdiction can reap the fruits of their victory in Kenya without re-litigating the same action. Legally, it shows Kenya’s adherence to norms of comity, reciprocity, and respect for the rule of law across borders. This enforcement is founded on statutory law in the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 43 Laws of Kenya), on common law derived from English law, and on the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which incorporates international law as domestic law.

This research therefore evaluates the law governing enforcement of foreign
Commonwealth decrees in Kenya, with focus on statutory laws, court interpretations, and common law rules that determine the process. Further, it questions the rationale behind recognition of such judgments, procedure available to litigants, and limitations or obstacles that may arise. In doing so, the study puts Kenya in its rightful place within the broader Commonwealth tradition of judicial cooperation while assessing areas for reform and development considering contemporary international legal practice.

Definition of Key Terms

• Foreign Judgment
  A foreign judgment is a decision of a court that is not in Kenya. For enforcement, it must be a determination on the merits of a case and be final and conclusive in the jurisdiction in which it is given. Under Section 2 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 43), foreign judgment means a judgment of a superior court of a reciprocating country which has been notified as such by the Minister by a Gazette Notice.
• Decree
  In civil procedure, decree refers to the formal pronouncement of an adjudication which finally determines the rights of parties to a suit. It may include orders for payment of money, performance of an obligation, or enforcement of a specific right. A foreign decree therefore refers to such an adjudication by a court in a competent jurisdiction outside Kenya.
• Commonwealth
  The Commonwealth of Nations, or the Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 56 sovereign countries that were former British territories. Its member states share a common heritage, common law traditions, and democratic principles of government. As a member, Kenya recognizes the importance of cooperation in law among the Commonwealth member states, including the enforcement of judgments reciprocally.
• Reciprocal Enforcement
  Reciprocal enforcement is a principle of law by which a court shall recognize and enforce a judgment of another court provided that the second court gives such recognition to judgments of the first court. This kind of principle is the basis on which the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act of Kenya is based to promote respect and co-operation between courts.
• Recognition vs. Enforcement
  Recognition is where the Kenyan courts cause the foreign judgment to become final and binding as to the matters decided therein.Enforcement is a step further in that it grants the winning party in the foreign judgment a right to enforce the foreign judgment in Kenya, for instance, by attaching property, garnishing accounts, or instituting other enforcement processes under Kenyan law.

Background
Enforcement of foreign judgments in Kenya has its roots in the colonial and post-colonial history of Kenyan legal development. As a former British colony, Kenya inherited the common law system, as well as most of its procedural mechanisms, from English law. English jurisprudence previously recognized foreign judgments based on comity and reciprocity, provided that the foreign court was acting in exercise of jurisdiction, the judgment was final and conclusive, and it was not fraudulently or against public policy obtained. This was the common law basis on which the statutory framework for the enforcement of foreign decrees in Kenya later evolved.

The legal position was further clarified with the enactment of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 43, Laws of Kenya). The statute intended to establish a clear procedure for registration and enforcement of judgments of listed foreign states, particularly those in the Commonwealth and other reciprocating states. The Act is premised on the policy that Kenya will enforce and recognize foreign courts’ judgments that, in turn, are willing to enforce and recognize Kenyan judgments. It is a policy of reciprocity that increases cross-border judicial cooperation and promotes certainty in international trade.

Constitutionally, the 2010 Constitution of Kenya has strengthened the position of international law within the domestic legal order. Article 2(5) of the Constitution recognizes general principles of international law as part of Kenyan law, and Article 2(6) brings ratified conventions and treaties into Kenyan law. Although enforcement of foreign judgments is generally under domestic statute control, the constitutional framework places greater emphasis on Kenya’s commitment to international cooperation and compliance with global legal norms.

From a regional perspective, the membership of Kenya in the Commonwealth of Nations and the East African Community (EAC) creates additional importance for the recognition and enforcement of foreign decrees. Legal traditionality common to the countries of the region, harmonization of the laws, and the need for unencumbered economic and social integration create additional incentive for Kenya to have an effective and reliable system of enforcement of judgments.

In practice, the enforcement of foreign Commonwealth decrees allows litigants who secure judgments abroad to enforce their rights over Kenyan assets without the necessity of relitigating the entire dispute. This does not only facilitate fairness and expediency but also renders Kenya more attractive as an investment and trade destination because it sends the message to international investors that their rights shall be protected under Kenyan jurisdiction.

Legal Framework Governing Enforcement in Kenya

Enforcement of foreign Commonwealth decrees in Kenya is governed by the interplay of constitutional provisions, common law principles, and statutory law. Together, these sources form the procedural as well as the substantive basis on which the foreign judgments are enforceable and recognized within Kenya’s jurisdiction.

1. Statutory Framework: Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 43, Laws of Kenya)
   The cornerstone legislation providing for the enforcement of foreign judgments in Kenya is the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act. It authorizes the issuance and enforcement of judgments delivered in foreign countries with which Kenya has reciprocal arrangements.
   • Scope (Section 3 & 4):
     Judgments of “designated countries” (those reciprocating states which have been notified by Gazette Notice) are registrable in the High Court of Kenya. They are of equal force and effect on registration to if judgments had been originally rendered by the High Court.
   • Conditions for Registration (Section 5):
     A foreign judgment is registrable in Kenya if:
     • It is a judgment of a superior court of a reciprocating foreign state
     • It is conclusive and final
     • It is for a definite sum of money excluding taxes, fines or penalties
     • It is not against Kenyan public policy
     • Foreign court had jurisdiction under principles known to Kenyan law
     • Time Limit (Section 9)
       Applications must be made within six years from the date the foreign judgment was delivered.
     • Effect of Registration (Section 7)
       Once registered, the foreign judgment becomes a High Court judgment and can be enforced just like locally won judgments.
2. Principles of Common Law
   Foreign judgments were enforced in Kenya prior to the enactment of Cap 43 under principles of common law inherited from England. The principles are still applicable where such matters are not covered by statute.
   A foreign judgment can be enforced under common law if:
   • The foreign court had proper authority.
   • The judgment was final and definite.
   • It was not based on fraud.
   • It did not violate fairness or public policy.
     This was confirmed in cases such as, Jayesh Hasmukh Shah v Navin Haria & another [2016] KECA 762 (KLR), where the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that foreign judgments can be recognized under Cap 43 or in situations not covered, by common law principles.
3. Constitutional Provisions
   The Constitution of Kenya, 2010, has more expansive under which foreign judgments can be recognized:
   • Article 2(5): Includes general principles of international law as part of Kenyan law.
   • Article 2(6): Provides that treaties and conventions ratified by Kenya become legally binding.
     Even though foreign judgments are not directly discussed in the treaties, the provisions reiterate international cooperation by Kenya and give a constitutional legitimacy to enforcement of foreign decrees.
4. Regional and International Instruments
   Kenya’s obligations to the Commonwealth and the East African Community (EAC) are also a source of incentives for harmonization of recognition and enforcement of judgments. The EAC Treaty (1999) encourages partner states to cooperate in issues related to the law and judiciary, while a binding treaty on mutual enforcement of judgments is still developing.
5. Judicial Precedents
   Kenyan jurisprudence has also continued to shape the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and, more specifically, foreign judgments of the Commonwealth jurisdictions. Recent and past decisions reveal a steady shift towards balancing sovereignty with international judicial cooperation.

In JM v PM aka PMM (Land Case E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5534 (KLR), the High Court was confronted with a dispute involving matrimonial rights to property stemming from a foreign divorce order. The question concerned was whether it would be possible for a Kenyan court to recognize and enforce such a decree as regards property in Kenya. The Court reaffirmed that as soon as a competent foreign court has finally determined a matter, Kenyan courts should give effect thereto except when the same is contrary to public policy or was made without jurisdiction. The decision illustrates the willingness of the courts to give recognition to foreign decrees in family and property issues and, in so doing, uphold judicial comity policies and prevent re-litigation of already settled cases.

The Court of Appeal in Haria & another v Shah (Civil Appeal 362 of 2018) [2024] KECA 527 (KLR) further developed this jurisprudence. The case was about the enforcement of a judgment that was obtained in Ethiopia, which is not a designated country under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act. The issue that confronted the Court was whether judgment of non-designated countries can be enforced in Kenya. The Court ruled that foreign court judgments are enforceable under common law, pending the prerequisites of fulfilling Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Act: jurisdiction, finality, no fraud, and in line with Kenyan public policy. In reaffirming its previous Jayesh Shah ruling, the Court ruled that absence of a reciprocal treaty is not fatal to enforcement. This decision extended the scope of enforceability so that foreign judgments by Commonwealth and other nations are not eliminated on mere technical grounds.

The Supreme Court in Ingang’a & 6 others v James Finlay (Kenya) Limited (Petition 7 (E009) of 2021) [ 2023] KESC 22 (KLR) gave more clarification on the procedural aspect of enforcement. In this labor rights case, the petitioners wanted to directly rely on foreign proceedings. The issue was whether foreign judgments were self-executing in Kenya. The Court decided that foreign judgments are not binding per se and must first be recognized by Kenyan courts, who act as gatekeepers to ensure jurisdictional competence and consistency with Kenyan public policy. The decision emphasized control by courts, upholding sovereignty while being respectful of foreign adjudications.

In Jayesh Hasmukh Shah v Navin Haria & Another [2016] KECA 762 (KLR), the Court of Appeal addressed the enforcement of foreign judgments from non-designated countries under Kenya’s Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, which only applies to judgments from designated states such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and others. Since Ethiopia, the country in question, is not designated, the Court held that such judgments could still be enforced at common law so long as they are final and conclusive, issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and do not fall within the exceptions under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. Drawing on Section 3 of the Judicature Act, the Court affirmed that Kenyan courts may apply common law principles where statute does not extend, filling gaps left by legislation. This decision clarified that foreign judgments from non-designated countries are not automatically excluded from recognition and enforcement in Kenya, and it has since been treated as a leading authority on the subject, particularly influencing later cases such as Haria & Another v Shah (Civil Appeal 362 of 2018) [2024] KECA 527 (KLR)

Viewed collectively, the cases establish a uniform pattern in Kenyan law: from establishing the enforceability of non-designated foreign judgments, to clarifying procedural safeguards and to expansion of recognition even into such delicate areas as matrimonial property. The courts have never suggested anything other than that enforcement will be granted where foreign decrees are final, jurisdictionally appropriate, and non-repugnant to Kenyan public policy. This emerging jurisprudence reflects Kenya’s readiness for international judicial cooperation, especially from the Commonwealth, while still preserving the integrity of its legal system.

Procedure for Enforcement of Foreign Commonwealth Decrees in Kenya

The Kenya enforcement of foreign Commonwealth decrees is based on a twin system based on the concurrency between statute law under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 43, Laws of Kenya) and common law. The path taken is mainly decided by whether the target judgment is that of a reciprocating state gazetted under Cap 43 or that of a non-reciprocating state in the Commonwealth.

Before enforcement, there are conditions that need to be fulfilled. There ought to be a requirement that the foreign court has exercised jurisdiction over parties and subject matter in the correct way. The judgment must be final and conclusive and not interlocutory or provisional. The judgment must also be for money sum or certain obligation, but not for orders for revenue, penal sanctions, or taxation. Finally, the decree should comply with Kenyan public policy, natural justice, and constitutional protection. These are threshold tests and gatekeepers for safeguarding the sovereignty of Kenya while promoting the principle of international comity.

Where the decree is from a country designated as a reciprocating state under Cap 43, the statutory route applies. The decree holder therefore starts by making an application to the High Court on a notice of motion or originating summons, and this is supported by a certificate of finality, certified true copy of judgment, and official translation if the decree is in a non-English language. When the High Court is satisfied that there has been compliance with the statutory formality, the registration of the judgment follows. Upon registration, the foreign judgment is as effective as a decree of the High Court of Kenya and can be enforced under the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21). The remedies by way of attachment of assets, garnishee orders, or committal to civil jail are then available to the decree holder.

Where the decree is one rendered by a non-reciprocating Commonwealth jurisdiction, enforcement proceeds under common law principles. The decree holder may then sue a fresh action against the High Court founded on the foreign judgment per se as cause of action. This places the burden on proof that the foreign court had jurisdiction, that the judgment was final and conclusive and not fraudulently or in contravention of natural justice obtained. If the court is satisfied to such effect by such grounds, the court will follow a new Kenyan judgment mirroring the foreign decree, which can then be enforced as if ordered by a Kenyan court. Such common law route was reaffirmed in Haria & Another v Shah (2024). The Court of Appeal held that foreign decrees were enforceable based on comity and obligation, even without reciprocity.

Kenyan courts can still refuse enforcement in exceptional circumstances.

Refusal of enforcement is possible where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, where the judgment was obtained unreasonably or unjustly, where it is contrary to public policy or contrary to the principles of natural justice, or where it is for the collection of taxation, penalties, or revenue. Apart from this, enforcement shall not be sought where the controversy under investigation has been finally determined in Kenya on grounds of res judicata.

The legislation also offers time limitations. For Cap 43, six years from foreign judgment is to be applied. Similarly, if enforcement is done under common law, then the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22) would be applied and generally offers six years for contract or obligation of debt.

Rationale of Enforcing Foreign Commonwealth Decrees

Enforcement of foreign Commonwealth decrees in Kenya has practical as well as philosophical underpinnings. The rationale can be touched upon under the following points:

1. Promotion of International Comity and Reciprocity
   Application of Commonwealth decrees ensure mutual respect between sovereign states. It reflects Kenya’s readiness to comply with other Commonwealth states’ courts’ rulings and insist on the same in exchange when Kenyan rulings are to be complied with abroad. Practice is important particularly in the Commonwealth system of states where shared legal traditions such as common law, constitutionalism, and compliance with the rule of law facilitate judicial cooperation. This was illustrated in Haria & Another v Shah (Civil Appeal 362 of 2018) [2024] KECA 527 (KLR), the Court of Appeal upheld an Ethiopian judgment even though Ethiopia was not a reciprocating state under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act. The Court ruled that foreign judgments can still be enforced at common law if they fall within the purview of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. This ensured Kenya’s interest in the comity of courts and its refusal to isolate itself from international court proceedings.
2. Enabling Cross-Border Business and Investment
   Since the world has been globalized, transactions in trade have found their way across borders. Investors and traders demand certainty that efficacious decrees in their own territories can be enforced in Kenya. This makes Kenya investor-friendly and thus encourages trade within the Commonwealth and globally.
3. Efficiency and Avoidance of Re-litigation
   Recognizing Commonwealth decrees prevents unnecessary duplication of judicial processes and avoids injustice at the cost of parties not being subjected to the cost of relitigating matters resolved finally elsewhere. Enforcement hence fosters judicial economy and preserves the doctrine of finality of judgments.

   In JM v PM aka PMM (Land Case E011 of 2024) (2025) KEELC 5534 (KLR), the High Court enforced a New Jersey divorce order, holding that re-litigation of matrimony matters already resolved abroad will be unjust and inefficient. The Court contended that Kenyan law would make effect for the foreign matrimonial orders’ finality where there had been observance of due process.

4. Access to Justice and Protection of Rights
   Many citizens have business, personal, or family connections with Commonwealth countries. Enforcement of foreign judgments protects them from denial of redress for no better reason than that a judgment has been rendered elsewhere in Kenya. Most are protectors of the rights of parties to a dispute and protect them against injustice where an otherwise successful party is denied an enforceable remedy.

   In JM v PM aka PMM (Land Case E011 of 2024) (2025) KEELC 5534 (KLR), the Court enforcing a foreign divorce decree upheld matrimonial rights determined overseas to prevent the prejudicing of the successful party by jurisdiction limitation. That is one way the court in Kenya is attempting to plug gaps in the law across borders and uphold people’s rights.

5. Harmonization with International Legal Trends
   Modern juridical systems recognize that modern justice knows no boundaries. The enforcement of Commonwealth judgments is a manifestation of Kenya’s desire to bring its legal system on par with the world’s best and in satisfying its constitutional obligation under Articles 2(5) and 2(6) of transforming international law into Kenyan law.

   In Ingang’a & 6 Others v James Finlay (Kenya) Limited (Petition 7(E009) of 2021) [2023] KESC 22(KLR), the Court elaborated that foreign judgments are not enforceable in Kenya by virtue of their being foreign but may be recognized subject to judicial consideration. This approach demonstrates Kenya’s balanced model upholding sovereignty while also embracing international cooperation in justice delivery.

6. Strengthening Rule of Law Beyond Borders
   Through enforcement of strict orders of foreign courts, effectiveness of court order is enhanced, and forum shopping is avoided by the Kenyan courts. This prevents criminals or debtors from stalling obligations by alienating assets or seeking refuge in Kenya.

   Most relevant in this context is the case of Haria & another v Shah (Civil Appeal 362 of 2018) [2024] KECA 527 (KLR), where the court took the position that foreign judgments would be enforceable under common law even without reciprocity treaties, subject to the conditions of jurisdiction, finality, and public policy being satisfied. It closed the door to any abuse of justice and reaffirmed that the rule of law does not have to be walled in.

Challenges and Limitations to Enforcement of Foreign Commonwealth Decrees in Kenya

Kenyan law also establishes a foundation for foreign Commonwealth decrees recognition and enforcement, but practical and legal challenges typically reduce the necessary practice. They are both doctrinal constraints to law and practical challenges to cross border litigation.

1. Reciprocity and Limited Coverage of Cap 43
   Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 43) deals only with the judgments of the states that have been declared to be reciprocating territories by the Government of Kenya. The gazetted states are few, and most of the Commonwealth states are not included under the Act.

   This gap leads decree holders to have recourse to the normal law avenue, which is longer, more expensive, and procedurally cumbersome. The Court of Appeal in Haria & Another v Shah (Civil Appeal 362 of 2018, [2024] KECA 527 (KLR)) observed the loophole, also that Cap 43 has fallen behind modern cross-border transactions.

2. Jurisdictional Challenges
   Kenyan courts will examine if the foreign court had exercised jurisdiction over the case in line with justice. The decree is not enforceable where the foreign court lacks jurisdiction as understood by Kenyan conflict of laws principles.

   This is the approach that was taken in Ngigi v Kimaru (Civil Suit E212 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 15831 (KLR), where jurisdiction was deemed to be a necessary requirement even though jurisdiction of foreign courts had never been questioned elsewhere previously.

3. Public Policy and Natural Justice Limitations
   A foreign order that is against the public policy of Kenya or against the constitutional values will not be enforced. Courts refer to Article 159 of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to test the fairness of foreign proceedings.

   For instance, such decrees so received in violation of audi alteram partem (right of hearing) or fraudulently are disqualified as such. This is generating uncertainty as the sphere of public policy remains expansive and open to judicial discretion.

4. Procedural Delays and Costs
   The enforcement process, particularly by the channel of common law, includes commencing a fresh suit before the courts in the High Court. The process is exhaustive, costly, and susceptible to delay due to procedural objections and interlocutory applications.

   This defeats the very purpose of enforcement of foreign decrees, i.e., the administration of effective and speedy justice.

5. Fragmented Jurisprudence
   The Kenyan enforcement case law remains fragmented and inconsistent. Some of the rulings are consistent with the strict rule of reciprocity, while others employ duty and comity as fundamentals.

   For instance, in Haria & Another v Shah (Civil Appeal 362 of 2018, [2024] KECA 527 (KLR)), the courts leaned towards the enforcement of foreign decrees on grounds of comity while in Ngigi v Kimaru (2024) was stringent as far as jurisdictional and procedural demands were concerned.

   This lack of uniformity creates uncertainty for decree holders.

6. Limited Awareness and Institutional Issues
   Litigants and even lawyers are not aware of the presence of Cap 43 or enforcement of foreign decrees under common law. This lack of awareness contributes to underutilization of the framework.

   Delays in enforcement are further compounded by Kenya’s backlog of judgments, undermining confidence in recognition of cross-border judgments.

7. Time-Bar Barriers
   Both the Limitation of Actions Act and Cap 43 provide six-year limitation periods for enforcement action. Decree holders who fail to act within this time gap lose both the right of enforcement and recognition, although the underlying obligation is still enforceable abroad.

In general, the challenges prove that while the doctrine of comity and reciprocity is acknowledged under the Kenyan legal system, the method of enforcing foreign Commonwealth decrees continues to be restrictive. Reciprocity gaps, jurisdictional hurdles, public policy discretion, and procedural inefficiencies are significant deterrents to enforcement.

Such weaknesses affirm the unsettled need for reform of Cap 43, harmonization of jurisprudence, and adoption of modern international enforcement instruments for example, the Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, 2019

Recommendations and Way Forward

The application of foreign Commonwealth decrees in Kenya remains the most vital significance in developing cross-border justice, trade, and investment. Nevertheless, as is contended, the law suffers from a series of doctrinal and practical failures. To address these challenges, the following recommendations are proposed:

1. Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap 43: Kenya should expand the list of reciprocating jurisdictions by gazetting other Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth jurisdictions that more accurately reflect the realities of the modern commercial world. Second, the “foreign judgment” should be defined to specifically include not only money judgments but also non-money orders such as injunctions, custody orders, and arbitral-related orders. Synching of Cap 43 with the Constitution of 2010 is also crucial to the extent that the statute aligns with the principles of justice under Article 159 and the Bill of Rights.
2. Adoption of International Conventions
   Kenya needs to consider signing and the ratification of the 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. The convention establishes one global system for recognition and enforcement, which is less ambiguous and more comforting to Kenya’s international trading partners and investors in the enforcement regime.
3. Create a Regional Enforcement Framework (EAC & COMESA)
   With regards to Kenya’s position in the East African region, the Parliament should enact a law ensuring automatic recognition of judgments within the East African Community (EAC) and COMESA. This would be based on the Brussels Regulation framework of the European Union, thereby enhancing enforcement within the regional blocs as well as cementing Kenya’s position as a center of trade and investment.
4. Judicial Training and Uniformity of Jurisprudence
   Continuous judicial education in conflict of laws and private international law is necessary to cushion imbalances in verdicts. A guide or practice directions by the Supreme Court of Kenya stipulating cardinal principles like comity, reciprocity, and public policy in enforcement of foreign decrees would also create certainty and consistency of jurisprudence.
5. Simplification of procedure
   The enforcement procedure should be streamlined by adopting summary enforcement procedures for registered foreign decrees under Cap 43 to cut long delays. In addition, the application of digitization should be encouraged by linking Kenya Law e-Filing system with reciprocity records so that decree holders can verify enforceability before they proceed with filing procedure.
6. Public Awareness and Capacity Building
   There should be a huge awareness campaign among lawyers, businessmen, and the public to sensitize them on the availability and benefits of enforcement mechanisms. There should also be coordination between the Law Society of Kenya and the Judiciary Training Institute to provide practical training on the application and use of Cap 43.
7. Harmonization of Public Policy and International Obligations
   Kenyan courts must view the application of the exception of public policy harmoniously. Application of the exception must be strictly done in a bid to avoid the abuse of using it to undermine proper enforcement. Courts must scrutinize foreign decrees against Kenya’s constitutional values and distinguish them from those which are simple differences in the law of the land.
8. Strengthening of Bilateral Agreements
   Finally, Kenya needs to negotiate bilateral mutual enforcement of judgments agreements with its biggest trading and migration partners in the Commonwealth, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and India. These would be clear, mutually enforceable agreements, reaffirming Kenya’s international judicial cooperation.

Conclusion

The application of foreign Commonwealth decrees is not only a matter of law, but also economics and diplomacy. As it stands with the current system under Cap 43 and common law having some basis, there must be reforms to capitalize on reciprocity, take Kenya to international levels, and reduce procedural inefficiencies.

Through the implementation of statutory reform, regional cooperation, judicial concord, and international conventions, Kenya can build a new and safe regime for the recognition and enforcement of foreign decrees. This will improve investor confidence, make it easy for cross-border justice, and make Kenya a regional hub of justice.