As businesses pursue growth, cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M and A) are increasingly shaping the region’s investment landscape.
These transactions offer opportunities to expand market reach, enhance competitiveness and consolidate operations. Yet, they also raise competition concerns.
The regulatory environment governing cross-border mergers involving Kenya has become complex. Transactions with effects in Kenya may now fall under the jurisdiction of the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK), the East African Community Competition Authority (EACCA) and the Comesa Competition and Consumer Commission (CCCC).
At national level, the merger control framework is anchored in the Competition Act, 2010.
At the continental level, the CCCC exercises supranational jurisdiction under the Comesa Competition and Consumer Protection Regulations, 2025. Where a merger is notifiable to and approved by the CCCC, the CAK does not conduct a separate substantive review.
A shift, however, occurred on November 2025, when the EACCA began receiving notifications for cross-border mergers.
This followed the EAC Competition Act, 2006, together with the newly enforced EAC Competition (Mergers and Acquisitions) Regulations, 2025. Under this, transactions must be notified where the parties operate in two or more EAC partner states and meet the prescribed notification thresholds.
Unlike the Comesa framework, however, the EAC regime does not expressly provide for deference to national authorities or for a notification-only mechanism where approval has been granted at another regional level.
The interaction and tension between national, regional and continental competition authorities has moved from a theoretical concern to a live commercial issue.
The result is that, despite the existence of thresholds under the CAK and the CCCC that may filter out smaller or less impactful transactions, the EAC framework introduces an additional approval layer that is not similarly mitigated.
This is significant, given that seven of the eight EAC partner states are also Comesa members.
Deal-makers now face a more complex assessment framework. The CAK, EACCA and CCCC receive notifications separately, apply different notification thresholds, operate distinct filing procedures, impose varying filing fees and follow independent review timelines.
Every authority conducts its own substantive assessment.
It is, therefore, imperative that deal makers engage qualified transactions advisers to undertake careful, jurisdiction-specific assessment of notification requirements at the earliest stages of planning.
Experienced advisers will help structure the transaction appropriately, anticipate regulatory expectations, mitigate approval risks and ensure the parties move forward in full compliance.