AIFC Court or a Court of General Jurisdiction: Which Should You Choose to Protect Your Business?

16.03.2026

---

When choosing a method of judicial protection in the Republic of Kazakhstan, a business is faced with the question: should it apply to the state courts or refer the dispute to the AIFC Court?

The choice of jurisdiction affects the language of the proceedings, the applicable law, the timeframes for consideration, the requirements applicable to representatives, and the legal costs.

Choosing a jurisdiction is not a procedural formality; it is a transaction risk management tool and an element of a project’s investment architecture that should be determined at the outset.

Legal basis and jurisdiction: English law or national law

State courts

State courts consider civil and commercial disputes in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The proceedings are governed by the rules of national law, and judgments are binding and enforceable throughout the country.

Recourse to a state court is possible without any special agreement between the parties; jurisdiction is determined under the general rules of procedural law.

However, in cross-border transactions it should be borne in mind that recognition of Kazakh court judgments abroad is possible only where there are applicable international treaties or on the basis of reciprocity.

AIFC Court

The AIFC Court operates within the special legal regime of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) and is based on the principles of English common law, which provides:

1. a well-developed practice of analysing the commercial context of a transaction;
2. the use of disclosure and cross-examination;
3. perception of the institution as a neutral forum for foreign investors.

In international projects, the inclusion of an AIFC Court jurisdiction clause often reduces the “jurisdictional discount” applied by a foreign counterparty.

The AIFC Court has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes connected with AIFC activities, and it also considers other commercial disputes where there is a written agreement between the parties referring the matter to the AIFC Court.

Key differences in procedure and evidence

Language of the proceedings: why the AIFC’s English-language process matters for investors

State courts:

Proceedings are conducted in the Kazakh language, with Russian also officially used on an equal footing.

AIFC Court:

The proceedings are conducted exclusively in English.

In major disputes involving a foreign party, key decisions are taken by the board of directors of the parent organisation rather than by local management. The language of the proceedings therefore affects the manageability of the dispute.

Evidence and procedural features

State courts:

The main emphasis is placed on written evidence. The process is more formalised, and the taking of evidence is regulated by procedural legislation.

AIFC Court:

There are broader possibilities for presenting evidence: witness testimony, cross-examination, and document disclosure. The Court pays attention to the factual circumstances of the case and the commercial context. The AIFC Court’s procedures make it possible to examine the factual structure of a transaction in depth.

Timeframes for consideration and appeals: where can a decision be obtained more quickly?

State courts:

A multi-tier appeal system is предусмотрен: first instance, appeal, and cassation.

The average time required to obtain a final and binding judgment may be approximately 6 to 9 months or more, taking appeals into account.

The multi-tier appeal system in the state courts increases the safeguards for review, but it may also prolong the final resolution of the dispute.

AIFC Court:

Consideration of a case at first instance may take from 4 to 8 months, depending on the complexity of the dispute. Most cases are concluded at first instance, and appeals are filed rarely.

In the AIFC Court, most cases are concluded at first instance, which creates a higher degree of procedural certainty.

For business, this means a more predictable assessment of reserves, financial reporting, and investment obligations.

Practical recommendation: if finality of the decision and minimisation of protracted appeal procedures are important, the AIFC Court may provide greater procedural certainty.

Requirements applicable to representatives

State courts:

A representative may be a person with a higher legal education who is duly registered in accordance with the established procedure (an advocate or a legal consultant).

AIFC Court:

In addition to the general professional requirements, a representative must be registered with the Registry of the AIFC Court. For business, this means that it is important to select a team with practical experience specifically within this system, since procedural strategy under a common law model differs substantially from that of national court proceedings.

Final recommendations

The choice of jurisdiction is part of transaction risk management.

Before signing a contract, it is advisable to carry out:

1. an analysis of the parties’ asset structure;
2. an assessment of the possible place of enforcement of the judgment;
3. modelling of the dispute scenario;
4. calculation of the time and financial consequences of each model.

The choice between a state court and the Astana International Financial Centre Court should be based on the business strategy, the structure of the transaction, the composition of the parties, and the anticipated nature of the dispute.

For standard domestic commercial conflicts involving the application of national legislation, recourse to a court of general jurisdiction is advisable.

For cross-border projects, the involvement of foreign investors, complex corporate disagreements, and a preference for common law principles, the AIFC Court may prove to be the more effective instrument.

A contractually agreed jurisdiction clause in advance is of decisive importance, because it is this clause that shapes the procedural model of the future dispute and the level of judicial protection.

A well-drafted jurisdiction clause can change the parties’ negotiating position, influence a counterparty’s conduct in the event of a conflict, and enhance investment protection.

Authors: Andrey Artyushenko, Alibek Slan

The REVERA Kazakhstan team can assist you in:

1. Modeling potential dispute scenarios.

2. Drafting a properly structured jurisdiction clause aimed at protecting your investments.