Enforcement of security interests in movable collateral determines whether secured transactions law effectively facilitates credit or remains a mere legal fiction. This article presents a comparative analysis of the enforcement regimes under Nigeria’s Secured Transactions in Movable Assets Act 2017(STMA) and Kenya’s Movable Property Security Rights Act 2017(MPSRA), both modeled after Article 9 of the U.S Uniform Commercial Code. Focusing on repossession, disposition, subordinate interests, and redemption rights, the article evaluates how each framework balances enforcement efficiency with borrower protection. The findings highlight a divergence in enforcement philosophy: Nigeria’s STMA implements a cautious, borrower-centric model by mandating pre-repossession notices and police assistance, which safeguards the borrower at the expense of enforcement speed. Conversely, Kenya’s MPSRA advances creditor-oriented efficiency by authorizing self-help repossession without statutory notice, subject only to the absence of borrower objection. While both statutes mandate commercial reasonableness and good faith in enforcement, this article argues that optimal enforcement outcomes will depend less on statutory text and more on institutional capacity, systemic fairness, and continuous legislative reform.