The High Court has cleared the way for the auction of a prime Nairobi property owned by Cape Holdings, the owners of the 14 Riverside buildings, which host the DusitD2 hotel, over a Sh5 billion debt dispute.
This follows the court’s decision to lift a temporary order that had halted execution of a debt dispute between Cape Holdings (Under Administration) and Synergy Industrial Credit.
The court ordered fresh warrants of sale to be issued immediately for the property registered as L.R. No. 209/19436 to facilitate its sale by public auction after finding that conditions earlier imposed by the court had been fully met.
The ruling marks a decisive step in a decade-long legal battle over the recovery of a commercial debt owed to the lender.
The dispute arose from enforcement proceedings by Synergy Industrial Credit against Cape Holdings, whose prime asset is the Nairobi property targeted for sale.
Synergy said it paid Cape Holdings Sh750 million to acquire a section of the 14 Riverside complex, but the deal collapsed, prompting the matter to be referred to arbitration.
In 2015, an arbitrator directed Cape Holdings to pay Sh1.6 billion plus interest. That amount has since ballooned to more than Sh5 billion. Synergy has been seeking to recover the debt by selling the complex and other properties owned by Cape Holdings.
In June 2025, the court halted the auction and ordered an independent valuation to determine the property’s current market value before any fresh sale process could proceed.
The valuation, conducted by Knight Frank Valuers Limited and dated October 9, 2025, was later filed in court, which said the requirement had been satisfied, removing the basis for continuing the stay order.
“The court finds that the continued subsistence of the stay orders of June 26, 2025, serves no purpose. The stay was conditional, and the condition has been met. To delay the issuance of warrants any further would be to deny Synergy the fruits of its judgment,” the court ruled, dismissing Cape’s request to halt execution of the decree.
The judge directed the court’s Deputy Registrar to issue fresh warrants of sale to facilitate the disposal of the property through a public auction.
Further, the court dismissed an application by Cape Holdings seeking to restructure payment of the debt through conversion of the property into long-term leases.
The company had proposed transferring one block known as Grosvenor, formerly Synergy Square, to Synergy to partially settle the decree. But the court rejected the proposal, describing it as another attempt to delay enforcement of the judgment.
The court said the application was “yet another delaying tactic… in a decade-long effort to frustrate a lawful decree.”
It stressed that the prohibitory orders issued in June 2023, barring any dealings with the property (Title No. Nairobi/Block 92/259) to secure it for attachment in the debt recovery proceedings, remain in force.
In the ruling, the court explained that the orders stopped any transfer, sale, lease, charge, or other dealings with the property until further directions from the court. The orders were issued as part of the enforcement of the decree in favour of Synergy.
The court also struck out Synergy’s earlier request to lift the corporate veil of Cape Holdings and pursue its directors personally for the debt.
It ruled that such action would be premature while the company’s main asset remained available for execution.
“Proceeding directly to lift the corporate veil before exhausting remedies against Cape Holdings’ primary asset would be premature,” he stated.
The ruling further dismissed applications by Jaysukhlal Bhaichand Sanghrajka, an interested party to the suit, seeking access and possession of property Nairobi/Block 92/259.
The court held that the issue had already been decided in earlier proceedings and could not be reopened.
It found the applications were barred by the legal doctrine that precludes re-litigation because the court had pronounced itself on the same question in November 2024.
The court also vacated interim orders issued in December 2025 allowing the interested party to access the property. It criticized the manner in which the interim orders had been obtained.
It said the applicant failed to disclose the existence of a similar pending application when seeking ex-parte relief.
“A party seeking ex-parte orders is under a duty of utmost good faith to make a full and frank disclosure of all material facts,” the judge said, reviving enforcement proceedings that had stalled for months.
