Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Tanzania: A Comparative Study.

The study examines and compares Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda by analyzing the degree to which recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards are treated under their regimes distinctively. This study comes from the fact that; cross border decisions are often not enforced in another state unless and until the same meets certain statutory requirements. Such requirements are practicable to accommodate the current wants of the growing Tanzania and inevitable global social economic and cultural interaction, it appears to be doubtful as Tanzania is said to have biblical and colonial legislations on the same matter to date. The study argues that the applicability of old laws on recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions may hinder enforcement of rights caused by laws themselves due to outdated provisions, independence of judiciary hindrances, political whims of on power governments and other impracticable and uncertain powers which are established by those laws and some of their unwarranted provisions’ confusions. Applicable legal regime in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda provide for modes by which a foreign judgments and arbitral award holder enforce their rights in a manner acceptable by such sovereign states. Some laws establish some uncertain requirements that may lead to judgments holders to delay or fail to enforce their rights, especially when execution is against the government. It is also revealed that some states disrespect the New York Convention, 1957 which inter alia establish bases of the enforcement of arbitral awards to party states; the result of which, this international instrument remain toothless on the shield of sovereignty to decide in enforcing state while jeopardizing rights of in hands of the contestation winners. The general culture of enforcing forum is noted