(AI-generated image)
Many because of Boris Awa (Kigali Impartial College ULK, Kigali, Rwanda) for the tip-off
I. Introduction
The popularity and enforcement of overseas judgments in Francophone African nations stays a largely underexplored topic within the literature, together with in French-language scholarship. The legal guidelines of many nations haven’t but been systematically analysed from a comparative perspective, and in a number of jurisdictions entry to even essentially the most primary data is itself a substantial problem. This be aware goals to lift consciousness of African personal worldwide regulation, specifically in Francophone Sub-Saharan African nations. The case mentioned right here issues the enforcement of a New York judgment in Côte d’Ivoire. It supplies a chance to current the Ivorian system of recognition and enforcement of overseas judgments and to look at a few of the key points addressed by the Ivorian court docket.
II. Info and Procedural Developments
The case concerned a dispute between X (an American firm) and Y (an Ivorian firm). The American firm sought the enforcement in Côte d’Ivoire of a U.S. judgment rendered by the New York Supreme Courtroom, ordering Y to pay a sure sum of cash. To that finish, X introduced an motion earlier than the Abidjan Industrial Courtroom.
In assist of its utility, X argued that the overseas judgment glad the authorized necessities for enforcement beneath Ivorian regulation, specifically that:
the overseas judgment was rendered by a court docket having jurisdiction beneath New York regulation;
the choice had turn into last and irrevocable (passée en pressure de selected jugée), as evidenced by a certificates of non-appeal;
the dispute arose from the non-performance of a business contract and didn’t fall throughout the unique jurisdiction of Ivorian courts;
reciprocity was established, since Ivorian judgments could also be enforced in the USA, on the bottom that each the USA and Côte d’Ivoire are contracting states to the 1993 HCCH Adoption Conference.
By an interlocutory default judgment (jugement de défaut avant dire droit) dated 6 June 2024, the Courtroom invited X to complement its utility, discovering specifically that
it had not been established that the legal guidelines of the State of New York present {that a} mere certificates of non-appeal is adequate to render a judgment enforceable;
provided that service of the overseas judgment on Y had been effected by digital means, it had not been demonstrated that, beneath New York regulation, service of a judgment might validly be effected by email correspondence.
Subsequently, X introduced a brand new motion, this time towards the Public Prosecutor hooked up to the Abidjan Courtroom of First Occasion, in search of enforcement of the identical overseas judgment.
By an interlocutory civil judgment rendered after adversarial proceedings (jugement contradictoire avant dire droit) dated 30 October 2025, the Abidjan Industrial Courtroom once more invited X to submit:
the entire unique judgment in English, along with a French translation ready by a sworn translator; and
proof that the overseas judgment had turn into last and binding and that it had been duly served on the judgment debtor.
X was additionally invited to summon Y to affix the proceedings by the use of obligatory intervention (intervention forcée).
X complied with the Courtroom’s requests. Following Y’s intervention, Y contested the enforcement of the American judgment, arguing inter alia that reciprocity was not established with the USA. In response, X contended {that a} conference existed between the 2 nations, arguably referring to the 1993 HCCH Adoption Conference.
III. Ruling
By a judgment rendered after adversarial proceedings (jugement contradictoire) dated 15 January 2026, the Abidjan Industrial Courtroom declared the American judgment enforceable in Côte d’Ivoire, ruling as follows (abstract).
First, the Courtroom recalled the authorized regime governing the enforcement of overseas judgments in Côte d’Ivoire, referring to the related statutory provisions (see under, Remark).
Making use of this framework to the case at hand, the Courtroom discovered, upon examination of all of the paperwork within the case file, that:
Y had been duly notified of the existence of the proceedings carried out in the USA that resulted within the judgment at challenge;
the cut-off dates for lodging an attraction had expired; and
no factor within the case file established that judgments rendered in Côte d’Ivoire couldn’t be enforced in the USA.
IV. Feedback
1. Relevant framework
The enforcement (exequatur) of overseas judgments in Côte d’Ivoire is ruled by Articles 345 to 350 of the 1972 Code of Civil, Industrial and Administrative Process (CCCAP), which establishes the authorized framework beneath which overseas judgments could also be declared enforceable in Côte d’Ivoire. The relevant provisions could also be succinctly summarized as follows:
Article 345 lays down the precept that overseas judgments haven’t any authorized impact in Côte d’Ivoire until they’re declared enforceable by an exequatur resolution.
Article 346 determines each the character of the exequatur process and the court docket having jurisdiction to listen to functions for enforcement.
Articles 347 and 348 set out the circumstances that have to be glad for a overseas judgment to be declared enforceable in Côte d’Ivoire.
Article 347 specifies the substantive and procedural necessities, which embody specifically that:
the overseas judgment was rendered by a court docket having jurisdiction beneath the regulation of the State of origin;
it has turn into last and enforceable beneath that regulation;
it was rendered in proceedings by which the defendant was correctly summoned and afforded a chance to current a defence;
the dispute doesn’t fall throughout the unique jurisdiction of Ivorian courts;
the overseas judgment doesn’t battle with a previous last judgment rendered by an Ivorian court docket between the identical events in regards to the similar trigger and object; and
its doesn’t violate Ivorian public coverage.
Article 348 provides reciprocity as a further requirement, offering that overseas judgments could also be enforced in Côte d’Ivoire provided that judgments rendered in Côte d’Ivoire might likewise be enforced within the State of origin.
Lastly, selections granting or refusing exequatur are topic to the abnormal treatments obtainable beneath home regulation (Article 349), and, as soon as declared enforceable, overseas judgments are executed in Côte d’Ivoire in accordance with Ivorian regulation (Article 350).
2. Significance of the case
The case mentioned right here supplies a number of important insights into the way by which overseas judgments could also be enforced in Côte d’Ivoire.
Two are of specific relevance.
a) Unique jurisdiction.
First, opposite to what’s typically asserted within the literature, Ivorian courts don’t essentially declare unique jurisdiction in disputes involving Ivorian nationals. On this respect, it’s generally submitted that Articles 14 and 15 of the Ivorian Civil Code, inherited from the French Civil Code, have historically been interpreted as conferring unique jurisdiction on Ivorian courts. Accordingly, the unique character of Articles 14 and 15 of the Ivorian Civil Code would forestall the enforcement of overseas judgments rendered towards Ivorian defendants.
Apparently, the current case reveals that the Ivorian nationality of the judgment debtor neither prevented the enforcement of the American judgment on grounds of unique jurisdiction nor gave rise to any argument to that impact by the events.
b) Reciprocity
The second issues the reciprocity requirement and its operation in Côte d’Ivoire.
The commented case is in keeping with the obtainable judicial follow, based on which the next components could also be recognized:
i) Enforcement doesn’t depend upon the existence of a treaty between Côte d’Ivoire and the rendering State. Accordingly, the absence of a treaty doesn’t result in the refusal of enforcement of overseas judgments in Côte d’Ivoire. A number of instances, together with the one offered right here, present that even within the absence of a treaty, overseas judgments have been declared enforceable.
ii) Reciprocity requires a displaying that judgments rendered in Côte d’Ivoire could also be enforced within the rendering State. This doesn’t depend upon demonstrating that the courts of the State of origin have actually enforced an Ivorian judgment (de facto reciprocity). Out there case regulation, nevertheless, reveals that the occasion in search of enforcement generally submits such selections as proof to ascertain reciprocity.
Within the current case, curiously, the American firm argued {that a} treaty exists between Côte d’Ivoire and the USA, referring to the HCCH 1993 Adoption Conference. This argument isn’t actually convincing for 2 causes: (i) reliance on the Conference is misplaced given its restricted scope, which is confined to adoption issues; and (ii) even assuming that the Conference have been relevant, it doesn’t tackle the enforcement of adoption selections as such, however as a substitute it focuses on recognition.
Regardless of the events’ arguments in regards to the relevance of the existence of a treaty for the aim of building reciprocity, the Abidjan Industrial Courtroom merely held that no factor within the case file reveals that Ivorian judgments couldn’t be declared enforceable in the USA. Whereas the Courtroom adopted a comparatively liberal strategy, it have to be acknowledged that its place isn’t fully clear. Specifically, it stays unsure whether or not the Courtroom sought to deal with a federal State akin to the USA, which consists of autonomous authorized items with their very own authorized and judicial methods, as a unified authorized system. In step with the Courtroom’s place, one might ponder whether, for the aim of difficult reciprocity, it could be adequate to indicate that an Ivorian judgment was denied enforcement in a specific U.S. state, provided that some states do require reciprocity, albeit as a discretionary floor for refusing enforcement. In any occasion, the obtainable judicial follow, along with the current case, means that, regardless of sure remaining uncertainties (together with, inter alia, the query of burden of proof), reciprocity doesn’t seem to represent a critical sensible hurdle in Côte d’Ivoire.
