Mega Business Services Ltd v Exxone Solutions Ltd (Civil Suit E029 of 2021) [2025] KEHC 16528 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (9 October 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEHC 16528 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Civil Suit E029 of 2021
MA Otieno, J
October 9, 2025
Between
Mega Business Services Ltd
Applicant
and
Exxone Solutions Ltd
Respondent
Ruling
Introduction
1.This ruling concerns the Originating Summons dated 24th December 2020 by which the Applicant seeks recognition and registration of two judgments rendered by the Commercial High Court of Rwanda in Case No. R. Com 00723/2016/CHC/HCC and Case No. R. Com 00359/2017/CHC/HCC respectively.
2.The first judgment (Case No. R. Com 00723/2016/CHC/HCC) was delivered on 6th April 2017 by Hon. Justice Rwanyindo K. Fanfan, ordering the Respondent to pay the Applicant USD 40,734, being the Applicant’s share in the subject of litigation, and Frw 1,200,000 as legal costs and advocate’s remuneration.
3.The second judgment (Case No. R. Com 00359/2017/CHC/HCC) was delivered on 7th December 2017 by Hon. Justice Mukamurera Clotilde, and dismissed the Respondent’s application for review and upheld the earlier decision, awarding an additional Frw 400,000 as costs.
4.The Applicant avers that the Respondent, a corporate entity operating within Kenya, has failed to satisfy the decretal amounts. It is further deponed that the said judgments are final and conclusive, and that there is no pending appeal or review before any Rwandan court.
5.The record confirms that the Respondent was duly served, including by substituted service through publication in the Daily Nation newspaper on 12th September 2024, but failed to Enter Appearance or file any response. Accordingly, the application will proceed for determination based solely on the pleadings and submissions filed by the Applicant.
6.The Application proceeded by way of written submissions. The Applicant’s Counsel, J.M. Waiganjo & Co. Advocates, filed submissions dated 12th August 2025 on behalf of the Applicant.
Analysis and Determination
7.Having considered the pleadings, attachments, and the submissions filed herein, I identify that the only issue for determination is: Whether the Application meets the statutory threshold for recognition and enforcement under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap. 43, Laws of Kenya)
8.The enforcement of foreign judgments in Kenya is governed by the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap. 43 Laws of Kenya (“the Act”).
9.Section 3(1) of the Act provides that a judgment obtained in a superior court of a reciprocating country may, on application to the High Court, be registered and thereafter enforced as if it were a judgment of the High Court, provided that the judgment is final, conclusive, and relates to a definite sum of money.
10.The Applicant has annexed duly certified and translated copies of the Rwandan judgments, the corrective order dated 25th January 2018, and proof of service upon the Respondent.
11.Under the First Schedule to the Foreign Judgements (reciprocal Enforcement) Rules, Rwanda is designated as a reciprocating country, and the Commercial High Court of Rwanda qualifies as a “superior court” for purposes of recognition and enforcement under the Act.
12.The judgments are final and conclusive, having disposed of all issues between the parties. The review application was dismissed on 7th December 2017, and no further appeal or review is pending.
13.The decrees also relate to definite monetary sums, namely USD 40,734 and Frw 1,600,000, satisfying the requirement of definiteness and enforceability under Section 3(1)(e) of the Act.
14.On jurisdiction, the Respondent was a party to the Rwandan proceedings, and the Commercial High Court of Rwanda was duly seized of the matter. There is no evidence of any jurisdictional objection or violation of natural justice.
15.The Application was filed on 24th December 2020, within the six-year limitation period prescribed under Section 5(1) of the Act, reckoned from the date of the final judgment of 7th December 2017.
16.In Jayesh Hasmukh Shah v. Navin Haria & Another [2016] eKLR, the Court of Appeal emphasized that a foreign judgment, once registered under the Act, “takes the shape of another procedural document before it can reach the execution stage.”
17.In the premises, and based on the material before me, I am satisfied that the Applicant has met all statutory and evidential requirements under Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the Act. The Rwandan judgments are therefore eligible for registration and enforcement in Kenya.i.On costs of the Application1.The general principle on costs is that costs follow the event, unless the Court, for good reason, orders otherwise. (See Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 Others v. Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 Others [2014] eKLR).
19.As the Application is unopposed and meritorious, the Applicant is entitled to the costs of this application.
Disposition
20.In view of the foregoing, I find that the Applicant’s Originating Summons dated 24th December 2020 has merit and is hereby allowed on the following terms:a.The Judgments delivered by the Commercial High Court of Rwanda in:i.Case No. R. Com 00723/2016/CHC/HCC on 6th April 2017; andii.Case No. R. Com 00359/2017/CHC/HCC on 7th December 2017, are hereby recognized and registered as judgments of the High Court of Kenya pursuant to Section 6(1) of theForeign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap. 43, Laws of Kenya).b.b) The said judgments shall be enforceable in Kenya as if they were judgments of this Court.c.The costs of this application are to be borne by the Respondent
21.It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS9TH OCTOBER 2025ADO MOSESJUDGEIn the presence of: -C/A – Moses…...………….….. for the Applicant.....………….…..... for the Respondent